Dave Smith VS Triggernometry: War, Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and the American Empire

The people of the United States of America never had a referendum on empire. We don't want to pour money into all these different parts of the world. And I don't agree with you that we get more bang for our buck than we otherwise would. Yes, Iran funds groups that are a pain in the ass to Israel. That is certainly true.

And there's a big >> It's more than a pain in the ass, Dave. Let's be fair. It's about taking Israelis hostage, raping them, killing women, killing children, dragging them off to the dungeons and holding them there for power. That's not the same as what the IDF is doing. Would you accept that? >> No, I don't really think that's right. If you're talking about this conflict and you're going, "Put yourself in their perspective. Put yourself in their perspective." The end result is that they're going through that at a much larger scale than the Israelis.

My issue comes with people when they interview the Nick Fuentes of the world and they do not give an appropriate push back on ideas. I don't agree that if you don't push back on someone's ideas, you're endorsing it. Okay, I understand there's going to be people who praise Hitler and people who praise Stalin, but you can't praise both, man. Like, you got to be good. You got to be good on the other one.

>> This episode is sponsored by our friends at Hillsdale College. Right after this episode, go check out the incredible online courses which are absolutely free at hillsdale.edu/trigger.

>> Dave Smith, this has been uh waiting to happen for a long time. The internet wanted it to happen. You're here. Nice to meet you. Thanks for coming on. >> Oh, thank you guys both for for having me. I I agree. It's been long anticipated. I'm glad we were able to make it happen.

>> Yeah. And you and I individually, we've debated stuff before. And one of the things I've always really genuinely enjoyed about it is I think we come at the world from very different directions, but it's always a discussion of the issues. >> Yeah. >> And there's not enough of that. A lot of of the conversations in our space have become very ad hominemum, etc. That's not why you're here, and that's how we're going to approach it, I think, uh, from from our angle. So, >> speak for yourself. [laughter] >> Yeah. Francis has a list of quotes from 2012. >> Well, it would be great if me and you did a good faith debate and then me and you [laughter] just did like a vicious and we could just go back and forth. I like that idea. >> We can try it out. Try both ways. But anyway, it's nice to have you on. Uh, before we get into it, a lot of our audience actually won't know your background or your story or who you are. They'll just know that they see you talking about certain things and whatever. So, tell us a little bit about you first of all.

Um, well, I'm from here, uh, from New York City where we're recording this interview. And, uh, born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. Um, I started standup comedy in 2006, I think. And then I, uh, became very, uh, interested in the, uh, Ron Paul presidential campaigns and I got sucked down the black hole of being obsessed with all of these issues that we all talk about all the time. And then I just been podcasting for the last 15 years or so. And it's uh for a long time to basically no audience and then over the last few years to somewhat of an audience which is better.

>> And the Ron Paul thing that attracted you was his position on foreign policy and non-interventionism. >> Yeah. At first that was the thing that really drew so I was like um you know I think much similar to you uh that we're like around the same age and I think our kind of coming of age was the was 9/11 and the war on terrorism and the Iraq war specifically. And so at that point, you know, this is 2007 when I first found Ron Paul. So at that point, you know, the wars have been going and going really badly for for several years. And also all of the pretenses for the war have kind of been exposed at this point of, you know, down to not just the weapons of mass destruction, but like every detail of it just wrong.

Um, and so I was essentially like, you know, I'm a Jewish kid who was raised by a single mom in Brooklyn. So I was like a liberal, but without like really thinking much about it. That was just the correct thing to be. Um, so I liked I had probably kind of like a standard liberal critique of George W. Bush, you know. Um, and I liked uh the movie Fahrenheit 911 or whatever, even though yeah, it turns out I was all wrong. Um, but it was but I was with the spirit of like, yeah, we're against George W. Bush. And I remember in 2006 being happy that the Democrats won the Congress back. And uh, I actually, you know, I was really dumb enough to believe them at the time. I was like, well, that's the end of that. you know, they're not going to fund the war anymore. And so that was kind of like a moment of like disillusion where I was like, "Oh, for all for all the stuff that Nancy Pelosi talks, she's going to keep funding George W. Bush's war even though she has the purse strings now." So, I was kind of a little bit like I I'd woken up to that. And then when I saw Ron Paul in the famous Ron Paul Giuliani moment, I was like, "Oh, this guy is actually radically more anti-war than any of these these Democrats who are kind of squishy on the issue."

Um, and and I just thought his I thought his perspective like blew my mind on it. And it was something like when he really explained blowback and how these wars got started, I was like, "Wow, this really makes a lot of sense." So, I was very interested in that. And then just because I liked him and I was interested, I read his book and I just wanted to learn more about him. And then he kept making the case for like free market economics and really free market economics, like substantially more free market than the free market, you know, typical advocates. And I thought to myself, like that's got to be wrong. There's got to be something that like he's missing. So I almost wanted to read about it to find the flaw in it. And along the way, I ended up getting converted and became the libertarian daywalking autist that you see in front of you. [laughter]

>> So that was kind of your journey which was looking at 911 and everything that happened. And I don't think people understand for our generation that had a profound effect. It had such a profound effect cuz you know the crew that we've got, you know, they're younger lads and we talk to them and it doesn't resonate. But for us who grew up, because I'm pretty much the same age, there was before 911, there was after 911. It was, it literally felt like there was day, then there was night.

>> Yeah. I mean, it's like uh and even now looking back at it all these years later, it almost it feels like the mo, you know, like in a time traveling movie, like that's the moment that we got to we got to go back and change because it didn't just change the mentality of of the country and the western world for that matter, but it actually changed the country. Like we live in a different country post 911 than we did before 911.

>> We did live in a different world. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that right. And I mean there's um like there wasn't a Department of Homeland Security. There wasn't a TSA. There wasn't a war on terrorism. There wasn't this um constant emergency state that we've been living in since 9/11. You know, even in like in the immediate aftermath of 911 when they passed the Patriot Act, like even in the immediate aftermath of 911, it was controversial. There were people who were like, "Whoa, this is really unAmerican to start saying we don't need a judge to sign off on a warrant before we start surveilling people and all this stuff." And what they put into the Patriot Act, right, was like a sunset provision that well, this will have to be approved every six years or whatever it is. Um, and and we'll have to come back and justify that the emergency is still here. But that's just it just gets approved const I mean I think they changed the name of it one year or whatever but it just keeps getting essentially my point is we've just accepted that we're in a permanent state of emergency since 911 and we govern that way.

Um, and I think it was you know, we we probably were ignoring a lot of problems in the '90s, but you kind of can't overstate to young people like you were talking about today how different the world was back then. It was not so much better in so many ways. But look, the um, you know, there there were racial issues obviously in America, but the obsession with racialism was just nothing like it is today uh pre 911. The um, the country was a much freer country. The government was a much smaller government. Um, and and there just was a there was a feeling of security, perhaps an illusion of security that was really ripped away from a lot of people. And what happened is that there was obviously 911. There was Afghanistan which you can debate. Should we have got involved? Should we not have should we have stayed for so long? All of those questions perfectly valid. But I think where most sane people say we made a colossal error was Iraq. And Iraq, I was thinking about this and it people might get a little bit triggered by this, but it was kind of our generation's Vietnam where we went, "Oh, what what you said and what the truth is, those are two separate things."

>> I I would go even beyond that, which is it's not just what you said. It's like there were millions of people on the streets of Britain when we were we would have been I don't remember how old we would have been uh 2003. >> So we were in 2021. So yeah, so it would be 2021, millions of us protesting against this, saying the thing that then turned out to have been exactly true and yet our governments went and did it and also made the world less safe and more unstable as a result.

>> No, that's right. I mean, look, the the thing with Afghanistan, right, is that the real catastrophe in Afghanistan was that the because the choice was made to not I mean, immediately after 911, even well before the army invaded, the the CIA and special forces were taking out al-Qaeda, you know, cells in in Afghanistan. I don't think anybody was arguing against that or if there is someone arguing against that, that's a very fringe, you know, argument. But the decision was made that no, we're not just going to to take out the al-Qaeda cells, but we're going to fight a regime change war against the Taliban, which is a totally separate thing. Like, it's a it's a much different thing to say like they're guilty of the crime of housing somebody who planned to attack us cuz no one was really alleging that the Taliban was in on the plans for 9/11. It was just that they essentially rented a room to Osama bin Laden and his guys. That's a, you know, that's like going to war with the landlord because a murderer lived. Look, maybe it's a little bit different than that, but it's it's certainly not a given that we should have >> they rented the room because they really liked this guy, Osama. >> Sure. Sure. And I'm not Look, and then we had our government had a long history with the Taliban, both positive and negative. Um, but yeah, I mean look the Iraq war and then also just the fact that like the the fact that they put the this axis of evil together of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, three countries that the only thing they have in common is that none of them had anything to do with 9/11. Like it just clearly was not about that. And it was very transparent. I mean, I guess to this day and maybe we'll debate like people still debate what exactly the motivation to go into Iraq or what exactly, you know, led to all of these wars or what the components were. But the thing that everybody kind of just knows is that the Bush administration had a bunch of war-hungry people in in their ranks and that they used 9/11 essentially as an opportunity to cash this blank check for war. And I do think and I' I've tried to express this many times because I do think it's like fair to be as charitable as possible. I think they believed in the hype. Like I think that they believed like these war like when they said it'll be a cakewalk. I think that's what they envisioned like that it was like I don't know this again they still had 90s mentality. They were looking at the war in Serbia or the you know the interventions in the Balkans or they were you know and going this will be easy. Look at the 91 war in Iraq. We could just go overthrow Saddam. We can topp the Soviet Union's gone. We could topple all these countries. But what it ended up being, I mean, is just like, you know, the greatest catastrophe of the 21st century. I mean, just millions of people slaughtered, tens of millions of people displaced or injured, and, you know, and and every last one of the countries, every theater worse off than it was before. And it's really interesting to see the impact that has had on America cuz it's had an impact in the UK, but it hasn't had as visceral an impact in the as in has in the US amongst our generation and to the Tucker's generation as well. Like I look at Tucker and his anti-interventionist stance and I think a lot of it and we've constant and I talk about this all the time. We think that a lot of it comes from the fact that, you know, if you are pro war and pro- intervention, then you see something go so horrifically wrong, so terribly wrong. And it's not just the, you know, the millions of people that died. It's also the servicemen that come back who believed in an idea, >> had their, let's be fair, they had their lives completely ruined. and the the number of them that then went on to commit suicide or develop drug problems, alcohol problems, that would if I was gung-ho, which I wasn't, but if I was, that would really make me look at myself in a very deep and profound way.

>> Well, I think I Yeah, I mean, I think that's completely true and I think Tucker would say that and has said that himself. Um, but I think like one more layer to it is then also seeing that so many of the people who advocated to this for this war with certainty that they were right, talk down to all the rest of us like we were a bunch of idiots for having these these concerns that with certainty said, you know, we will be greeted as liberators and democracy will sweep the region and the war will be paid for in oil and it'll be a cakewalk and all of this stuff and they have weapons of mass destruction, obviously the big one. and then were completely unaffected by that and then just started advocating for the next war and the next war and the next war with the exact same condescension toward people saying like hey what if this turns out to be a catastrophe what if you're not right about all of this and so I think there was what happened with a lot of people like Tucker Carlson and there's a lot of people in that that camp I mean I think uh like Anne Coulter um uh I think Laura Ingram to some degree kind of like the more paleoish wing of of the essentially a bunch of were following the neocons's lead when they were in power. And then I think it was that I think it was not just that the Iraq war was a disaster, but that they kept advocating for more of it afterward. And then they'd be like, "Whoa, these people really do just want to fight wars endlessly." Like it was almost I mean, I think I saw Anne Coulter once even say, >> she thought like the left-wing caricature of neocons that they just always want to fight wars, she thought was the dumbest thing ever when when the George W. Bush was in power. And then in the subsequent years she was like I really got no response to them anymore. I mean that does seem to be at every take like there's it's very strange to me and look I guess people could accuse me of the equal opposite like I'm almost always opposed to the war.

>> Well I was about to do that. Maybe I can because we're coming to an era where I think there is a profound disagreement which is >> Francis and I both viewed >> the see in Britain the war in Iraq was even worse >> cuz the only reason we went to war in Iraq is we didn't want to ruin our relationship with big brother right we little brother you know big brother wants to get in a fight what are you going to do that's basically what happened right >> but >> but wasn't it unpopular in like I don't think it ever had majority support so just Tony, it was Tony Blair making the decision to go. >> If you if you read between the lines of what he said at the time, it was basically like, well, if we don't do this, >> America won't be our friend anymore. >> Yeah. >> And by the way, if you're Britain, that's kind of a big deal. >> Sure. >> So, so you you know, I I don't necessarily um think that that truth was was a fake truth. That was real. Like that's a real concern. If you're the British prime minister, you have to think about what happens if you're no longer America's friend. That doesn't mean killing hundreds of thousand [laughter] people is the same thing, right? But here's what I was going to ask you because >> we had that same reaction to Iraq in particular. >> But I also think the going to the other extreme and saying there is no situation when we have to go out and particularly if you are America and look I know we this is maybe an era we might disagree as well. You like it or not America is a global empire. America's 5% of the world's population consumes consumes 25% of the world's resources. That's why you guys are so prosperous. That's why you're doing as well as you are. It's why you get to have your way in all sorts of international debates and discussions and whatever. But that empire is maintained by sometimes getting the club out and going, "You guys need to fall in line here." Is that a fair assessment?

>> I mean, I think it's to some degree a factual assessment. I mean, yes, America is an empire, and in order to be an empire, yeah, there has to be like a threat of violence that you're going to have to use at times. So, I don't disagree with that. But I guess I would just say that like, >> you know, if we're accepting that as the premise that like look, America is this empire. Well, then it's like I do think at a certain point because I see so many conversations about democracy and the rule of law and all of this. >> Well, well, I'm just saying but but that's my point. >> I'm Russian. It's like real politic. >> Well, that's that's the thing which I think it almost leads you to accept. Look, the people of the United States of America never had a referendum on empire. We never decided that we wanted to be an empire. And in fact, I could argue that the peace candidate running for president almost always wins. I mean, like it's almost always a huge advantage. You can go all the way back the last hundred years. Um, and the constitution, the law of the land, does not say that we're an empire. We're supposed to be a limited constitutional republic. And you can't be both. You can't be a limited constitutional republic domestically and a a global empire abroad.

>> Why is that? >> Because a government that is big enough to rule the whole world is also too big to be a limited government. It's too big to be a limited constitutional government. And in fact, it can't be limited. It needs to have emergency powers. It needs to be able to, as you just said, exert force anywhere around the world if someone's not acting the way you want to act. And so to me, that's the whole essence of the game is that it's like if we're going to be an empire, we can't be a republic. I see. >> And so if you want to save the republic, we have to abandon empire. >> I see that. It's an interesting perspective. I mean, I'm not sure that's necessarily true in terms of the size of government because you could have a very significant military and foreign service and the apparatus of government for dealing with foreign conflict while leaving your citizens mostly alone. I think that's possible. >> But you got to tax them to pay for it at the very least. Well, well, the thing is, this is what I was going to say is you might need to tax them to pay for it, but think about what you lose when you cease being an empire. This is my point about 5% 25% of the resources consumed, right? Like, are the American people really prepared for the consequences of not being an empire that dominates the world? Because you got to think, and this is kind of how the world works, and we do know this, America pulls back, that vacuum isn't going to stay there. We'd agree on that, right? like Russia and China or whoever else can would fill that void. We see this in Africa, right? America pulled out of Africa, the Chinese to a lesser extent, the Russians, but the Chinese especially are basically coming in and taking over. Nature pores a vacuum. So that's always been my argument and I'm keen to genuinely hear your perspective on this is like America you can you know you can you had Aramata on the show who called it like >> he called it the death star. >> The death star and we that was quite funny. There was so many people who were livid in the comments and >> what he called the American empire the death >> you know it's called trigonometry for a reason but my my point my point being right is what the choice you have actually in the real world is between an Americanled world or a Chinese-led world or a Russianled world >> and then I go which of those would I rather live in long before 1776 before Washington and Jefferson there was another generation men and women who crossed an ocean to build a new kind of civilization. They faced hunger, war, and wilderness. But they built communities, practiced self-government, and discovered that liberty and virtue had to go hand in hand. Hillsdale College's new free documentary series, Colonial America: From Wilderness to Civilization, tells the remarkable story of how a century and a half of struggle and faith forged the uniquely American character we know today. Access the whole course at hillsdale.edu. edu/trigger. You'll discover why liberty, especially the freedom to live by your own conscience, drove people to cross an ocean. You'll learn how they built towns and local governments from scratch to protect themselves, and how their belief in hard work and virtue created a society built on peace and prosperity. We proudly promote Hillsdale's courses time and again, and for good reason. They're genuinely brilliant. No gimmicks, no politics, just a world-class education at zero cost to you. So, if you want to understand how freedom really began, this is the series to watch. Go to hillsdale.edu/trigger to enroll for free. That's hillsdale.edu/trigger and see how America's story really began.

>> Well, so I think Okay, so I do agree like generally speaking, right, that like something will fill a vacuum. Um, but I don't think the choices between an America world or a China world or a Russia world. I think what ends up filling those vacuums mo like it's not inevitable that it's going to be a hegeimon that it's going to be one in fact the unipolar moment which I think is kind of over at this point but the unipolar moment is the aberration that that's like usually not the way the the world has worked historically usually there are different competing powers and they have their spheres of influence and then there so in other words yes it might be true that there are there are areas where China fills the vacuum but look even um which was kind of interesting I think to see over when Donald Trump first came in, right, when he was going, "We're not going to fund the war in Ukraine anymore." Then you had European countries going like, "Okay, well, we're going to step up." >> I totally agree with, >> right? So, but I'm just saying so, so in a sense, the fact that America say it didn't end up happening, but like let's just say America withdrew in that instance. Well, there might be several other people who end up filling that vacuum. And you might so like decentralization can also happen. It's not that a vacuum doesn't get filled, but it might get filled by multiple parties rather than one. >> America's still involved in the war, though. >> Right. Right. No, I'm saying that didn't actually end up happening. I'm just saying >> that's because you didn't pull out, >> right? That's my point >> that you didn't pull out though. If you had pulled out, Ukraine would get overrun >> and then you've got a whole new problem. And this is kind of I think where there's a genuine disagreement about the ideas of this because >> I just I come from a place where we don't have political correctness in Russia. So people don't pretend that all of this isn't true, right? >> You know, all of the stuff American people are told about, you know, we're going out there to spread democracy or they hate us because of our freedom. I mean with Islamists and we'll get on to that. That is partly true. But generally speaking, it's about we want to control the land. We want to control the money. We want to control the oil, we want to control the rare earth minerals. >> Now, if we accept that, which I think we both agree on, then you go, well, do I want Americans being in charge of that or do I want the Chinese being in charge of that? Again though, I mean I think it's like it's not strictly like I don't think ch look we are even though I mean China is a big economy and as a lot of people but we are substantially richer uh than than China is you know and we're going broke being the world empire. I don't think China is looking at what we're doing and saying you know what we should do we should get in on these 20ear catastrophe forever wars and really have our our our society crumble while we waste all these resources. And so like I don't again I don't think it's going to be a global like hegeimon unless it's the US right now. But that being said, I mean I I think empire is always a losing game. I mean it's I think it's good for the ruling elite, but I think it always it like kind of ends up costing more to the nation than it ends up uh producing. >> Really? >> Well, okay, I shouldn't maybe that's an overstatement. I maybe not in every single instance in in general. Broadly speaking, I think that's the case. And I think Americans would be far better off if you say whatever resources we get from fighting forever wars. I think we'd be far better off to not need to have an inflationary monetary policy, an income tax, a giant, you know, like this giant burden. I think like if there is one lesson of America. It's that actually free markets and true capitalism is what's going to produce the most wealth in the most sustainable and and ethical way.

>> But no, that I totally agree with. Uh, I'm not sure what you said about Empire show. I mean, we had one of the greatest historians of I'm not resorting to arguments from authority. I'm just saying >> you you guys had Daryl Cub. [laughter] [clears throat] >> Uh, Dominic Sambrook part of the rest is history. I think they've got the biggest history podcast in the world. And we talked about he talked about the fact that empires are the natural unit of history. Like if you look throughout history, that tends to be the way that the great powers of the world operate. They're empires, right? So I don't know that it's fair to say that America's problems or any country's problems in are about forever wars because I I don't the entire Western world including countries that weren't involved in the foreign wars are all making the same mistake and I think that mistake is not foreign policy although this big as we discussed there's been some pretty big mistakes >> it's about entitlements and benefits and >> well that's true too I mean for sure >> that's where I think actually we've basically got to a situation and I can't remember whose quote it is but we talked about this with one of our guests where the public have worked out that they can vote to get more from the government and punish anyone electorally who says we can't give you more free And so in the UK more people take more out of the tax the benefit system than they put in 51% of the public. Right? And I think that's really the death spiral that we're in. We can't reduce our spending and we can't reduce our debt and we can't reduce our deficit. because we don't want to forgo the free.

>> Yeah. Well, I think that's right. And I think um this is true on a lot of different levels, right? That and certainly I know a bit more about America than than Europe. But look, I mean the bottom line for all this is we have we have a government that's way bigger than what we can afford, right? Just much much bigger than what we can afford. And so you can't tax enough to get there. So you have to tax your population. Then you have to borrow a whole bunch of money. But even that's not enough. So then you got to print the money, right? And these are the essentially the three ways government can raise money or can spend money. And so what you have now is that right there are these giant entitlement programs that >> yeah it's much more it's much more politically advantageous for Donald Trump to say I'll never cut social security or Medicare cuz he's got to lock up that base of seniors who are Republicans. Um and also just the monetary system just keeps the prices of everything going up and up and up. And what it ends up creating in a weird way is a justification for socialism. I mean, you know, like when these kids say um they they'll say things like profit is theft. And I think it's it's very easy for like guys like us to look at it and go, "Hey, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of my life." Because the idea that what type of fixed pie fallacy is that? That if I go out there and I'm successful, that doesn't mean I'm taking it from you. That means I'm creating more wealth. I'm creating a bigger pie with more slices. But the thing is that under this current paradigm, they do kind of have a point. Like I uh I bought a house um three years ago, just about exactly three years ago. And I just got this isn't an official appraisal or anything like that, but I got a letter from my real estate agent that said uh the house is is up 200 grand in uh the last three years. And that does seem based on the listings I've seen the house is selling for, that seems about right. And you think about that in a way, you're like, "Wait, so what is that other than like >> essentially welfare from the system that they're because I'm in the owner class, because I got into the owner class 3 years ago, I now get an extra 200 grand of my net worth and >> the bar for young people to go buy a house is now that much higher." It's like I I kind of did take that from them in a sense, but then like as we're starting to hit this point where the young generation is getting so left behind, you still have these entitlement programs that are transfers of wealth from the young people to the wealthier older people. Think about how crazy that is.

>> And it's crazy especially because there are fewer and fewer young people relative to the number of older people. But aren't you kind of I think you're agreeing with me, which I appreciate. But isn't that kind of the point that while the foreign wars are bad and wrong and immoral in some cases, it's not really them that's causing all this problem, all these problems. >> Oh, I mean, it's a huge driver of it, too. I mean, they're all Look, if you look at the American government, it's the at this point, it's the entitlements, the defense budget, and the interest on the debt. >> But the defense but the defense budget isn't about fighting all these foreign wars. The defense budget is about protecting your empire which gives you access to you basically control all of Europe, right? America dominates Europe. You basically decide what happens in Western Europe. Uh you dominate parts of Asia. You get the resources that come with that. You get whatever oil you want from wherever you need it. You get to control the world. You get you have a defense budget not because you want to invade Iraq. You you have a defense budget because you're the biggest country. you you I know you don't like hearing this, but in the absence of a a neutral world policeman, America, someone's going to be the world someone's going to be going around kicking ass, right? Um and if you want to and if you want to have the 25% of the world's resources, that's you.

>> Yeah. I mean, I just I guess I don't mind hearing it. I think that is the way things are. But it's illegal under our constitution. The American people never decided that they want this. And in fact, the American people are saying pretty loudly, we don't want this anymore. We don't want to pour money into all these different parts of the world. And I don't agree with you that we get more bang for our buck than we otherwise would. And look, it's very easy even going into like these abstract conversations about like empire or who controls the shipping lanes or what would fill the vacuum if we didn't do that. Okay, but we still blew trillions of dollars on these. I mean, it's like$8 trillion dollars for the the war on terrorist. We agree it was a mistake. >> Okay, fine. Fine. But Right. and and we also agree not just a mistake but like a horrifically catastrophic moral mistake but also it's it's$8 trillion dollars. I mean that's a huge huge chunk of of this. So listen if you're arguing that entitlement programs yes they account for even more of the budget and yes they're a huge part of this whole you know monstrosity of big government. So I agree with you on that but no I think look at the very least we'd be way better off had we not just fought all these stupid wars >> that that I agree with. I'm I was making the point about the defense budget. The defense budget isn't for invading Iraq. The defense budget is for dominating the world. >> Sure. But again, I think this is more to the benefit of the elite than it is to the American people. I mean, yeah. It's like the defense budget is also why the all those uh richest counties in America are the suburbs of Washington DC. It's the reason why the the we're making millionaires if you're connected to the weapons companies. And it's, you know, I mean, like this is, yeah, it's it's a again a huge transfer of wealth program essentially transferring from the working and middle class to the ultra politically connected. And so I I think essentially that and this is true for all government spending. That's the swamp. That's the essence of what the swamp is, is that you extract money from the real economy, from people who are working, and you hand it out to the politically connected. I think it's like criminal. So that being the case, moving on, let's talk about something that nobody's going to get offended by, which is the Middle East. So because your position has been very interesting on on the Middle East, it's mainly been that you've been how should could I characterize it as being kind of pro Palestinian in the in your outlook in the way that you see it or would you put it another way?

>> Yeah, I wouldn't say pro Palestinian. I mean, I'm not like I'm I don't even know exactly what that means. Like, I'm not saying like I I'm against what's been done to them. Um I would, you know, I would be against that being done to I think just about any group of people. So, no, I don't think I'm pro Palestinian. I think I'm pro-American. Um but I'm certainly a critic of Israel's destruction of Gaza.

>> So, what what is it in particular? Did you feel that it was disproportionate that the violence or the I should put it another way the Israeli response to October 7th? Did you feel that was disproportionate? Was there another way that it should have been done? >> Yeah, I mean I think there's lots of other ways that it could have been done and certainly it was disproportionate. Um, but I think that I mean I think it's horrible and I think that it's um that America shouldn't be involved in it. I think it's it does nothing but cause a headache for our country. And you can see that all over the like even if you're even if you're for the war, you kind of can't deny that like this has caused major turmoil here. It was a major problem for the Democrats politically. It's a major problem for Donald Trump politically right now. It is not good for as as it says in the preamble to the Constitution, it is not good for domestic tranquility at the very least. But also, yeah, I just don't think I don't believe that we should be involved in like this horrific I I don't even think you can call it a war, the destruction of a captive people because there's a lot of people who would say, and I'm sympathetic to this, which is you have Iran, which are essentially funding terror cells right the way through the Middle East, Hezbollah, Hamas, amongst others, which are effectively destabilizing the region. And there's a lot of Muslim Arabic countries who despise Iran because they see them as an existential threat to their existence, which they are. They are they're Islamist in nature. So by that you would you would argue that unless you deal with the threat of Hamas, unless you deal with the threat of Hezbollah, you are essentially going to have a Middle East which is more unstable, which is going to become a hot bed of terrorism, which eventually is going to impact the safety of nations around the Middle East, but also in the West and in the United States. Yeah, I think there's been a lot of people who are arguing if we don't take this group out or that group out, it's going to lead to instability in the Middle East. And every single time we go to make that move, it leads to more instability in the Middle East. And I just firm I flat out reject the idea that Iran is an existential threat to any of those Sunni states in the region. What? Saudi Arabia? Who are we talking about? Jordan, Egypt, like >> UAE. I mean, if you speak to people in those countries. >> Yeah, I'm sure they're concerned about them. They're very concerned. >> Yes, of course. And there's a Sunni Shiite beef that's been going on for many many years and there's a lot. But the idea that like the US sock puppet states over there are really threatened by Iran I just don't think is right. I don't think >> they do feel that. >> Yeah. Okay fine. But like I don't think they're right about that. I don't think Iran is taking over Saudi Arabia. Like what do you mean existential threat here? They're going to take out one of these countries. Unlikely. >> Take out is you know take out is I mean countries don't tend to take each other out but go to war. uh you know they're fighting over interest like they are a >> yeah they're fighting over interests I think that's that's more correct but I also think that there's an interesting thing where when you go like all these uh all the like Shiite terrorist groups um or or I guess Hamas is whatever but if you're talking about Hezbollah Hamas uh the Houthis like the people who Iran have has been in business with um and I think of those groups Hezbollah the most you know what I mean like there's real direct connections and training and stuff there. It's a little bit different with the Houthis and and with Hamas, but again, those weren't the enemies of the American people. You know, when we go back to 9/11 and it it's been really fascinating how like the war on terror just like totally shifted over to being this whole other group that has nothing to do with knocking our towers down or or attacking the Pentagon or any of that. Our beef was always with the Sunni radicals and the Sunni radicals are actually at war with a lot of those groups that you're you're talking about. So, we've weirdly also done this thing now where we've picked sides, which I would say I think has a lot more to do with security concerns for Israel than it does for the United States of America. But now, we're on the side of al-Qaeda in Syria. We're on the side of al-Qaeda in we were in Libya. We're on the side of al-Qaeda in Yemen. And so, like, no, I actually don't think that's good for for, you know, if you look over the last 15 years, the people who were destabilizing the regions the most were the Bin Laden head choppers. I mean that was really the major problem that we had there. And so fighting on those guys side in all of these conflicts I don't think has done anything.

>> Well the the Sunnis have changed right the the the Saudi regime the UAE regime they are very not extremist. The Saudis used to spread extremism throughout Europe. They they're not doing it now. The people in charge right. So the extremists and the terrorists are mostly now being funded and and spread by Iran. I think is Franc's point. >> Yeah. Okay. But even that I mean I I don't know that that's exactly right. I mean, I I think you're probably right in your characterization of Saudi Arabia's evolution and the UAE. Um, but at the same time, I mean, >> look, again, we all agree on this, but to go, what was the huge mistake here that Iran has all this influence in the region? It was the Iraq war. It was the dumbest thing they ever did is that these neocons were convinced, you know, I was really I was watching the other day uh because David worms did this interview that was kind of like responding to me, which is just weird and surreal feeling. um cuz it's the weird world that we're all in now. But he's like talking about he's still arguing >> that like no, if the Hashemites had taken over in Iraq, then the Shiites would have had to listen to them and then Iran would have had to be nice or or Hezbollah would have had to be nice to Israel. But the the obvious truth which was predicted by many people in real time was that obviously we had a dual containment strategy in the '90s, right? Obviously, if you took out Saddam Hussein, it was going to hand the region to the Shiites who were much closer allied with Iran, and that was going to increase their influence in the region. So, again, this is all George W. Bush and Barack Obama's fault. And um and yeah, that now that being said, I don't think that means that we should go into the next war to try to, you know, push the balance back in the other direction. Imagine [snorts] having a personalized health blueprint, a plan built just for you based on exactly what your body needs. That is what Superpower delivers. Their goal is to help you reach your full 100-year potential. Here's how it works. A licensed professional comes to your home or you visit a nearby lab for a single

lab test that looks at over a 100 biomarkers, heart health, liver function, thyroid, hormones, metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, and even environmental toxins. Check it out at superpower.com.

Have you ever left a doctor's appointment feeling like you got nothing useful? Maybe they just said you're fine or told you to drink more water. No real data, no game plan, just a pat on the back. That is where Superpower comes in.

The results are not just numbers on a page. Superpower turns them into a personalized action plan with targeted supplements, nutrition, and lifestyle changes you can start right away. You will even learn your true biological age and how to improve it. Each year, you build on your data, seeing exactly how your choices are shaping your long-term health.

Normally, it's $499, but right now, it's just $1.99 for the full test and plan, which is far less than what other services charge for less comprehensive results. Visit superpower.com to learn more and lock in the special 199 price while it's still available. When you sign up, they will ask how you heard about them. So, just say trigonometry. that side again superpower.com.

>> I think the danger was Dave is that with Iran when they use rhetoric like we want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth you know that they are funding terror cells there is the suspicion that they've got nuclear weapons. If you say those types of words and you let's say you don't get involved and something awful happens that's going to destabilize the world whatever whatever happens that's going to start a war.

>> Well, no one I don't think anyone's speculating that Iran has nuclear weapons. I don't think there's any

>> Well, they're on the point of maybe getting nuclear weapons which is why the the strike happened.

>> Um I guess uh I think that um I think that look They they chant mean things is not good, but that's also not a justification for a war and or it's nowhere even approaching a justification for a war. And I do think

>> but it goes beyond chanting mean things.

>> Okay. But that is what you brought up. So I'm saying like there's look I think when people look at these things like in the same way that if you were looking at a trial, you don't just look at what the prosecution says, you look at what the defense says also. Even if it's a really really bad person, you still look at what the defense says as well. If you talk to to people, I've talked to several Iranians about this, but if you ask Iran, why do they hate America? Why do they hate America? What do you think the most common answers are? Like what? Because it's very clear. There's two that are really big that come up all the time. And it's not and it's not the same reasons why the bin Laden hated us. It's kind of different things, but the two big beefs they have is that we overthrew their government in 1953 and imposed the Shaw on them. And the other one is that we backed Saddam Hussein when he did the worst thing he's ever done, which was launch the war, the Iraq Iran war. He killed 500,000 Iranians and used chemical weapons and all types of horrible things. Yes, they chant mean things about us. We could also look at the rhetoric out of DC and out of Tel Aviv, not too friendly toward Iran either. You know, we put them on the axis of evil after 911, invaded and destroyed the two countries that touched them, right? Iraq and Afghanistan. and they were on the access now that so it's just kind of weird to hear Americans or or Brits talk about their rhetoric and what a threat they are to the Western world. It's like, hey, let's like there's been a lot John McCain was singing bomb bomb bomb Iran when he was running for president. Hillary Clinton, you know, you talk about threatening to wipe them off the map. What were what were her exact words if you remember? Uh it was something, you know, when she had to like overcompensate being like a woman running for president and she I forget her exact words, but it was something we we will uh we will totally eradicate totally decimate Iran or all of these things.

>> Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say. But those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.

>> And we actually have the might to do it. And we've attacked them. They haven't attacked us. Um, so again, I would just say that zooming out to the bigger picture. Yes, Iran funds groups that are a pain in the ass to Israel. That is certainly true. And there's a big

>> It's more than a pain in the ass, Dave. Let's be fair. You know, euphemism obviously. Yes.

>> Yeah. But October the 7th is more than a pain in the neck.

>> Okay. But okay, fine. But I'm saying Iran has historically funded Hamas, Hezbollah, the they've sold arms. Then it's like, okay, but like actually Iran is zero threat to the United States of America. They do not have nuclear weapons. They do not have the capability to hit America if they did have those nuclear weapons. And the idea of of launching a war of choice, a war of aggression, because you say they chant mean things and what if we didn't do anything and then something bad happens. I just think you're nowhere near the realm of like a a just war.

>> No, no, I that I totally agree with, but that isn't remotely what's happened here. Uh no one's launched a war on Iran, a preemptive war on Iran. What

>> Israel and the US just did. They call it the 12-day war.

>> So, what happened is, and this is I think it's useful to come back to October 7th. October 7th happened and then it became very clear that Iran has been funding the organizations that have been attacking Israel this entire time. Now you may agree or disagree about Israel being an ally should be an ally or not of the United States but Israel is an ally of the United States. So uh to the extent that and you know we had Yosi Cohen the former director of Mossad on the show to talk about the nuclear secrets they stole from Iran which then they gave to the United Nations and everybody else to see for themselves. I mean it's very clear Iran would like to have a nuclear weapon. And by the way when we asked YC why do they want one? He said because it allows them to project power in the region which is why anyone wants a nuclear weapon right uh I

>> well I think also the deterrent you know I mean and it's not even clear to me exact that they wanted a nuclear weapon and forgive me I'm not taking's word for it that they do it seems pretty

>> taking their word it's the documents they stole

>> well sure but they were look they were very clearly do I mean so a after 911 right Bush puts the axis of evil of Iraq Iran and North Korea okay so North Korea races to get a nuke they get nuclear weapons We've left them alone ever since. Saddam Hussein in 2002 tells the UN, "I'll allow inspections regimes to come in." Kind of waving the white flag rather. Gaddafi later does the same thing. We'll get rid of our chemical weapons program. We'll get rid of our nuclear program. All of this, we go in and topple both of those guys and they get killed publicly. Iran goes the middle, you know? So, like North Korea developed nuclear weapons, those other countries got rid of all their weapons. Iran went, "Hey, we're going to hang out here. We're going to let the world know that we've mastered the fuel cycle. We can break out and get a weapon if we want to, but we're not doing that yet. A kind of standoff of like don't attack us because we could make a nuke, but you know, we don't want to make a but you know, this kind of this this vague game, but it's it's a latent deterrent. That's the idea here. And then they can negotiate from there. And that's where they were sitting down to negotiate like what level of enriched uranium they would be at. So it essentially I guess the point is that it's hard to then look at them and go this is very suspicious that you haven't gotten rid of your entire nuclear program. It's like well the last guys who got rid of their nuclear program ended up sodomized to death in front of an angry crowd of people [clears throat] and the country that got nukes gets left alone. I totally agree with that, which is one of the reasons I actually believe that if the US and Europe doesn't help Ukraine have a peaceful solution that works, you're going to have loads of other countries pursuing nuclear weapons because if no one else is going to protect you, you might as well get a nuke. Like if Ukraine had nukes, you wouldn't have been invaded, right?

>> This is why one of my concerns about allowing these things to get out of hand is actually it helps nuclear proliferation. But the point about October 7th and which is why this is important is ultimately you and I can agree and Francis I'm sure does too. The war in Iraq was a mistake. A lots of mistakes have been made on foreign policy. The question is what do you do when you are in the situation when October 7th has happened right and this is a com you know we've had people who have different perspectives on this conflict as you know Basim was one of them

>> and I asked them what I think is a very legitimate question is like what should Israel have done forget about the occupation forget let's accept all all of that has happened already

>> all of that has already happened let's accept it and I don't want to argue about it I don't want to go into history because everyone's got their own arguments and blah blah blah blah blah but it's happened. What should Israel have done? And what I mean, we were just on Rogan show and I think Rogan agrees way more with you than he does with us about this, but he was like, "Yeah, if this if this happened to America, we'd be as bad if not worse."

>> I don't know. I mean, I don't know. You know, it's we could get into that, but let me just say I'll say this first and then I will very directly answer your question. But first, I will say I don't think it's like I get what Bassin was saying to you about that too. Like I understand the argument of being like like I could say that the example I made at that Charlie Kirk event with the now infamous Charlie Kirk event. Um, but the comments that I made was like hey look if you're pro-life it's not like incumbent on you to have a plan for the baby's education or daycare or something like that. Like you could just say I'm against this option cuz I find this morally unacceptable and then you figure it out for the So like my point is like you can just oppose what Israel did to Gaza and not have to come up with a solution. But I think it's also a fair question to ask. Well, I think I think it's fine to say this is morally open.

>> Not really cuz ultimately they have to do something.

>> Okay. Well, fine. But no, I mean I I also saying that I also think it's an interesting question and kind of a thought experiment. So I can go to October 8th. I can't change anything that's happened before that. I have to inherit that world. And then what would we do after October 8th? Well, look, I mean I do think first and foremost I think Netanyahu should have resigned in disgrace. I mean Netanyahu's entire political career has been very openly built around thwarting the establishment of a Palestinian.

>> Forget about Netanyahu. No, but this isn't you're asking me the question.

>> I'm asking what No, I'm asking I'm not asking you what Netanyahu I'm saying what should Israel have done,

>> right? Well, he's the prime minister of Israel. So, this is part Netanyahu resigned.

>> Look, also just the fact that

>> Dave Smith is now appointed prime minister of Israel following Netanyahu's resation. I mean, what does Dave Smith do?

>> Well, sure. Sure. I'm just saying I mean also the fact that it was his whole plan to prop up Hamas and keep them in power. That should be enough that you you get out of the way now. First of all, there should be a real investigation, man. And this is uh I mean this is something that still to this day I know of course look obviously there's there's a million clips of Charlie Kirk saying how much he loves Israel and then there's other clips that and they're all circulating. But his first reaction on the Patrick Bed David podcast which he did re you know he said that again later at speeches and stuff um was like this it is kind of bizarre that and I've I've talked to like uh military experts who have said the exact same thing. They've been like look there is something and I'm not alleging anything. I don't know you know I'm not saying it was a false flag or something like that. I don't think that's the case.

>> So what do you think it is? What is it that you think an investigation will unve? I mean the massive intelligence uh failure, how the most uh surveiled area of the world got into the biggest fortress in the world and there was such a long delay in in areas of a response. I mean that really should like

>> but what do you think that likely points to?

>> I I really don't know. I mean

>> because everyone we've spoken to goes you know we've spoken to former soldiers, people who've served in the IDF, all kinds of people like that and they basically say look we messed up on a whole set of levels. uh the intelligence people like Yosi blame the IDF. The IDF blamed someone else and that tends to be how these things go down really. But but I also with all respect do get the sense of quite a lot of people that talk about well why did it take them 6 hours to do this and that. I mean, we've had former British paratrooper on the show goes, "Well, look, in the UK, we've got I don't remember the exact stats, but we've got like x,000 soldiers who are like on prime active duty, but that's a 24-hour call up situation, right? We don't have, you know, thousands of people on a 1-hour response time where they're in the barracks, they just pick up a rifle and head to the front line. So, I think there's some pretty reasonable explanations for how that could have happened.

>> No, quite possibly. Yeah,

>> but what I get with all respect is that quite a lot of people who ask the question seem to be implying something, but they never say what it is that they're implying.

>> No, I mean, well, Charlie asked the question, "Was there a standown order?" I don't know. I mean, I I you know, I don't know, but it does seem it does seem to me something really worthy of investigation and really getting to the bottom.

>> Netanyahu did say this when we interviewed him, right?

>> What they said the investigation is super necessary once the

>> war. Yeah, right. Once the wars Okay, fine. Well, you can't have an investigation in the middle of a war.

>> Uh, I I guess

>> especially to your point with the person who oversaw the

>> I'm not sure exactly. Why can't you have an investigation while they're bombing Gaza? Why the bombs have to stop dropping before we can look into that?

>> Because they're running a war effort. Imagine being investigated while you're trying to manage a war. That doesn't work, right?

>> I guess I don't exactly understand that, but maybe. Um, well, I don't know. No, I mean, I think you

>> Okay. Well, imagine you run a podcast, which is a lot easier than running a war, right?

>> Well, sometimes it feels like [laughter] Yeah. Right. But imagine you were under the the the greatest scrutiny in America being investigated by every department.

>> This is actually how I feel when I'm doing my podcast. You're not far off.

>> Well, you got to stop smoking weed then cuz it's not that bad. Right. Fair enough. But right, imagine you are being investigated by every department and if you are found to have been responsible for a mistake that you made on your podcast or someone that works for you made a mistake that then you have to c the blame for you you get the the electric chair. Would that affect your ability to run a podcast? I would say yes.

>> Yeah, I guess so. at the same asse to keep the thing going.

>> I don't think anyone who is in any way blameable for October 7th is desperate for that investigation to come as quickly as possible. I totally agree with you. Of course, but let's so come back.

>> So, back to the

>> Netanyahu's resigned in disgraced Dave Smith investigation. Dave Smith is prime minister of Israel. Well, look, I would I would say that um I think there are again like you know even with uh like what you're talking about with Rogan and where I think people will go like well imagine Mexico attacked America in this way like what would we do to Mexico? But I also do think that like there is there's a really fundamental difference between Gazins attacking Israel and Mexico attacking America because Mexico although obviously there's a huge power discrepancy between our two governments they are a government with a military and and some degree of sovereignty and it the

>> it's much more

>> it's it's much more like

>> a um a Native American reservation but but a Native American reser resvation where we never gave the Native American citizenship and it's not a Native American reservation the way American Native American reservations are where they can come and go as freely as they please and it's you like it's just not you know we never gave the Native American citizenship we still hold them on these reservations we've had a blockade around this reservation after and an occupation going back 60 years no in that scenario I would not find it justified for the American military to start carpet bombing the reservation no in fact I think you would have a responsibility to make this a police action. Like you have to arrest these people. And before Netanyahu in I mean there was a terrorism problem since the creation of the state of Israel, partially the Zionists and partially the Arabs. Um, but there was but throughout the entire history of Israel, it was only Netanyahu who ever treated the terrorism problem as like a problem for the regular old military. It was always targeted assassinations, special operations. Again, Gaza is the most surveiled area in the world. They can wait these guys out. They can touch them. They can target them. Now, um again, it might put IDF soldiers at more risk than sometimes. That's an that's a thing that all modern uh uh armies accept that we will increase the risk to our own guys to fight wars in more moral ways than we have in the past. But I think that it should have been there was just a way to do it that would have I mean short of like right on October 8th right away where they cut the electricity, cut the water, cut all that just essentially announcing that we're at war with the civilian population. I mean look dude I know listen I know me and you like see like we don't see eye to eye on this. I know we're on different sides of this but just even saying like did you see like a few weeks ago when the ceasefire deal first starts right I'm going to ask you guys genuinely. So Hamas at one point or Israel accuses Hamas. Let's just say they're right. Hamas is slow rolling returning the dead remains of some of the uh hostages. All the living hostages have been returned, but there are remains of dead h. And Israel accuses them of slow rolling. Let's even say they were. And so as a response to that, they go, "We're having the aid halfing cutting in half the aid that's getting into Gaza." As a response to Hamas slow rolling dead remains. Not saying that doesn't mean anything, but like dead people are a little bit different than alive people. That you're going to cut off the aid to women and children because of like that's it's war on. Doesn't that like on some human level? Don't you guys go, "Yeah, that's wrong." Like you shouldn't you shouldn't the civilian population like that?

>> Well, when we launched our first bit of trigonometry merch, we learned very quickly how important five-star reviews are. We found out the hard way how shipping is so often just as important as a product itself. And if you've ever tried to manage shipping yourself, you know how messy it gets. That's why smart businesses use ShipStation. ShipStation brings all your orders from Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Shopify, or your own site into one easy dashboard. You can compare over 200 carriers, print labels in bulk, and save up to 90% on shipping rates. ShipStation helps you avoid errors, ship faster, and actually earn those five-star reviews. It's why 98% of businesses that try ShipStation stay for life, and some grow up to 40 times faster. Delight your customers and get rave reviews with cheaper, faster, and better shipping. Upgrade to ShipStation today to get a 60-day free trial at shipstation.com and use code trigger. There's no credit card or contract required and you can cancel anytime. That's shipstation.com code trigger.

>> The issue is that the police action thing is really what this is all about, right? Because if you see this as a war, I mean, historically speaking, no country at war is required to provide aid to enemy civilians. That never happened.

>> Well, it's not a matter of being required to provide it. It's a matter of blocking the aid that international organizations are trying to get through. But but when whenever any country has been at war, this really hasn't been a concern of theirs ever. And Israel is doing way more than any country at war has done on this front. But it doesn't matter. I don't defend Israel. I don't say that everything they've done is right. I don't think they've done it the way that I would have done it. You are really not going to like the way I would have done it. And I but what I'm trying to find out from you is you say police action and that's we we we had this debate but not face to face where we exchanged videos on this right and we talked about Native American reservation and you say police off police action. You've got 50,000 jihadi terrorists. Jihadi as in willing to die for the cause. Is that fair? You shake your head

>> maybe. I I mean, I don't know. I think I don't think any of us really know for sure. But yeah, I think the Israeli government was claiming something like that.

>> You are you disputing the numbers or the jihadism?

>> I just don't know. I I don't know what the number of jihadists are. I just don't know. I don't It's the number you're unsure about. Okay. So, it's not the jihadi part. It's

>> No, there are jihadists obviously.

>> They are prepared to die for. So you've got can we say just so that we do agree like 40 to 50 or 30

>> I just maybe it may maybe short for sake of argument

>> 40 40 to 50,000 people in a highly geographically concentrated area tiny area right tiny tiny area 50,000 people with pretty sophisticated weaponry actually uh IEDs everywhere booby traps everywhere anti-tank missiles sniper rifles this is a militarized terrorist organiz organization. Can you really do you really think you can deal with that in a police action?

>> Well, I think you can certainly deal with it with uh target assassinations, special operations, the way Israel's dealt with their terrorism problem for their entire existence. But the point again about this is that I think that when you've look, if you occupy occupying a country, you know, let's say like after a war, you occupy a country for 6 months or for a couple years or something like that. Israel's been occupying the West Bank and Gaza for longer than the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe. It's a 60-y year. And at a certain point, you're like, you know, like there was this big thing where they just voted to annex the West Bank when JD Vance was there just to be disrespectful to America. Even though they're our welfare country, they can still disrespect our most think about the most basic of asks from America. Like, could you just not occupi? But look, the truth is it's already been annexed. All of this is Israel. You know, Israel's had and come back to the police.

>> There's an obligation at that point that these people are your people, whether you acknowledge that or not. When you've had control of them for 60 years, you're the sovereign in these areas, then like, yeah, I think

>> how do you police 50,000 armed jihadis? How do you how do you deal with that as a police action? Imagine you had the Native Americans. They were they were pretty badass boys when you you know, when you guys first came here. Imagine you had 50,000 of them in a in a Manhattan, right? And they just went on a slaughtering and raping and rampage, right? And then you were going, "Let's send in the cops." I don't know that there's anyone who thinks that's realistic.

>> All right. Well, I mean, I don't

>> But tell me how that's realistic. I'm I'm open to it.

>> Well, I'm just saying that. Well, look, as I just said, Israel has a long history of targeted assassinations and special because October 7th is a different level of threat to anything that's ever happened before.

>> You kept these people occupied for over 60 years. You never gave them already baked all of that in.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I know. But I'm just making the point that whether you think it's logistically difficult to do or not, the truth is that they just destroyed the entire strip and and and Hamas hasn't been eradicated anyway.

>> But that's that's I agree with. But what I'm saying is it's not logistically difficult. I just think it's wishful thinking to imagine that a threat. So So here's how I see it and you tell me where where you think I'm wrong.

>> October 7th happens. If you're the prime minister of Israel, you yourself.

>> You go, "Fuck, we're being invaded. Our people are being slaughtered." You might also be worried about the blowback on you. You were in charge. I I hear all the things that you I think you might say.

>> And then you go, "We can't live with this. That's what any that's what any president or prime minister of a country that had been invaded in that way would say. We cannot have this on our doorstep. I don't care about history. I don't care who's right, who's wrong. We can't have this, right? The people who did this, the people who funded this, the people who orchestrated this, the people who participated this, they need to hand themselves in for justice or we're going to kill them all. That's what America would do, right? I think that's a fair claim.

>> I don't know. I don't know about that. But but I mean, look, I mean,

>> so so then they go in and they are trying to eliminate Hamas. They're not trying to go in with special forces and take out Sinoir. They're not trying to take out this guy or the commander of this. They're trying to destroy Hamas. That's what they're trying to do. Now, if you think that's not their the right reaction, I understand. I think most people would say if this has happened to your country, America, Britain, that's what the overwhelming majority of people would demand of their government. If the Native Americans had done this, that that would be the nature of the response. I don't believe it's credible to say that can be addressed on a policing basis. That's a large scale military operation and there's no other way to do it.

>> Accomplished destroying Hamas.

>> Degrading Hamas to the point where he just can't come back.

>> Yeah.

>> Now,

>> I don't think that's been done, but okay. I mean, so look, I mean, I guess in in your in your view, it wouldn't be I wouldn't be able to degrade Hamas through police action or special ops or something like that. And in my view, it's like you're also not able to degrade Hamas. But my view comes But my view comes with the bonus added of not slaughtering 100,000 people. So that's kind of the the difference. But let me just say, can I just to your point because I get what you're saying and I do think there is something

>> they have degraded Hamas though, Dave. It's like

>> they've killed a whole lot of them and probably created another generation of Hamas that will that they will be fighting for years to come and and we'll see how this

>> I'm getting very interrupted. I get excited.

>> No, it's fine. I'm I'm guilty of the same thing. Um, but I will say that like I do think there's this tendency for for people to say like well look, if you want to put yourself in the in the um and me and Coleman talked about this a bit, but like if you want to put yourself in the Israeli shoes, like I'm fine with that. I think then we should also put ourselves in the Palestinian shoes and then we should put ourselves in the American shoes. Well, that's or the British shoes for that matter cuz that's what I really am concerned with. So, um I would say first of all

>> I think it was Aaron Mate actually who had the line which I really liked a lot where he said in order to buy Israel's just like the justification for this you have to accept the premise that nothing can justify October 7th but that October 7th can justify anything. And there is something where you go like look okay I I'm sure Israel could look at October 7th and say we find this to be intolerable and we are entitled to a violent response and if some innocent people get killed in that violent response well I'm sorry but this just happened to us and we have a right to do that.

>> You could get there from the Palestinian perspective too well there are differences but although

>> but the differences are what matters here.

>> Okay. Well I I don't know. I'm not sure they are but go ahead.

>> So here's the difference. The difference with say you mentioned for example the Soviet Union occupying Eastern Europe.

>> When Eastern Europe wanted to break away from the Soviet Union, they didn't invade Moscow and women. They didn't take hostages. The difference is that armed resistance. Look man, we're men. If people came to our place and started putting us in chains, we'd rise up. We'd pick up a rifle. We'd engage in armed resistance. But when you deliberately target civilians, it's not the same. It's not the same as dropping bombs on terrorist houses who deliberately put their families in those houses. It's not the same.

>> And that's the difference.

>> Yeah. See, I just I guess if it wasn't for all of the reports over the last two years, then like maybe I would we, you know, I don't know. Is it that different than IDF soldiers taking target practice at kids as multiple doctors in Gaza have reported? Is it that much different than the uh what was it called? who where's daddy uh AI scheme where they were following the terrorists back to their homes to take out their families too. I mean like no I don't I

>> Do you think Israel is deliberately killing civilians? Like

>> by definition yes like

>> by what definition?

>> Well, in the sense that like if you if you take an action that you know is going to result in civilians being killed, then it's deliberate.

>> The rules of war say that that is what the rules of war are a construct. I mean listen like sure we're talking about morality or logic here it's like look let's talk about logic but you're taking look you're again like again all the reports I mean which you could go through you know you go read Dave Damp's reporting for the last two years and every single day there's been an article about another atrocity uh that was being committed against them. Now, there certainly is a difference between like the primitive nature of of Hamas's attack and the barbaric nature of Hamas's attack, but at the same time, the end result of it is innocent people being slaughtered. I know it is. And that is so and if you

>> but there is a difference between Nazi Germany attacking Poland and the Western Allies responding. Would you agree there is a difference? They both result in people being killed but there is a difference because it's about the conduct and who initiates that particular phase of it. Right? Is that fair?

>> Yeah. But I think that I mean this is kind of this is the difference with October the 7th. This is why it's a different category of violence in my opinion because you've got a situation where a band of terrorists deliberately invade another place and they don't attack I mean sure they attack some ideas they kill a bunch of ID people.

>> They attack some idea facilities but really it's about taking Israelis hostage, raping them, killing women, killing children, dragging them off to the dungeons and holding them there for power. That's not the same as what the IDF is doing. Would you accept that?

>> No, I don't really think that's right. I mean, again, I think there's, if it makes sense, I just like to use like an example. It's almost like, you know, you could say like uh, you know, like Eastern European countries, as you know, well, right, where there's a lot of corruption and there'll be like lowlevel primitive corruption type stuff. Like you could if you're in um I don't know if you there's countries in your if you're in Romania, it's kind of like a known thing, which is true, I think, in Mexico, too. Like if you get pulled over by the cops, you could slip them some money and get out of it. Now, that's very low-level corruption, right? In the United States of America, good luck doing that. You know, if you if you get pulled over for a DUI and you try to slip a cop a couple hundred bucks, I can I mean, maybe one time it, but I can assure you that is not a good idea and you're just going to get another charge. We don't have low-level primitive corruption like that. What we have is the prison guards union lobbies for mandatory minimums for marijuana. We have corruption on a much more sophisticated, but in a sense, it is still corruption, right? So, in the sense that yes, Israel, it's very when it's when you're having a fighter pilot bomb a building and you say it's collateral damage, I understand where that is not it doesn't get as visceral reaction. It's not as as barbaric and primitive as like Hamas breaking into Israel and just kind of killing everything that moves and then dragging as many people back to hold in captivity. But again, Israel just the in this uh when they did this swap just a couple weeks ago after the ceasefire, Israel released 1,700 Gazins that they've been holding without charges of anything. They've been doing this, by the way, since well before this latest conflict in Gaza.

>> But you can't compare those two things either.

>> Well,

>> you can't Hold on. Hold on. You can't compare them.

>> You can compare them.

>> Maybe you can't equate them. You certainly can compare them.

>> Okay, fine. You can't equate them, which is what I'm really saying. You can't compare people, many of whom are violent terrorists,

>> and many are maybe aren't

>> and many aren't, and people who've been taken hostage by a war a war party of Hamas crossing into Israel while they butcher and rape. It's not the same thing.

>> Again, I'm not saying it's the same thing.

>> Well, you kind of are.

>> No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm saying that like they are awfully similar, you know, like if if I don't think like if you, as you said, we're men and we're we're men with families and stuff like that. I think that like yes, if if a Hamas militant broke into your house and grabbed your kid and brought him back over there, I don't know that that actually is that much different than someone in an IDF uniform breaking into your house, grabbing your kid, and going to hold them. By the way, there's been reports going back decades and decades of torture in these Israeli detentions. They hold Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaz. In fact, I think it was 1999 when they outlawed finally the what they called moderate interrogation practices. moderate interrogation, including tying them up and binding them and blasting loud m things that we would consider torture. So, like, yes, it's much more systematized. It's much more sophisticated. It's not as primitive, but in the same way that I went like the prison guard union at lobbying for mandatory minimums really is at it is as much corruption as just paying off a cop when you're drunk behind the wheel. It's just at a much larger scale. And the point is that those the people, right, like the the woman who you hear whailing as she hears her one-year-old screaming for her from underneath a building of rubble, who's literally being tortured to death. Uh, you know, just his bones crushing and screaming for his mother. She's feeling the same thing that those Isra like she's as much of a human being. She's feeling the exact same thing that those Israeli parents felt when their kids got slaughtered at that festival. The same thing me and you would be feeling if it was our kids in that situation. And so the point is that look, obviously I'm not equating it. I'm not saying they're the same things because look, I'd be much more comfortable being nextdoor neighbors with a a drone operator, you know what I mean, for who is drone bombing wedding weddings in Yemen or something like that than I would being nextdoor neighbors with a Hamas terrorist, you know what I mean? Because there is a difference in the way more sophisticated civilized men can compartmentalize things like that in their life. But I do think that like if you're talking about this conflict and you're going put yourself in their perspective, put yourself in their perspective, the end result is that they're going through that at a much larger scale than the Israelis ever.

>> Of course, but but that's what happens when you start a war with a much bigger force. Right.

>> But it's it's very debatable who started what here.

>> Everyone claims they're reacting to the other one.

>> I know. But October 7th is a Senerous thing. It's a one-of-a-kind thing, right? You shouldn't have to rearrange your life to deal with hair loss. With HIMS, expert care is right there when you need it. Simple, online, and personalized. Hims provides access to prescription hair loss treatments with clinically proven ingredients like finasteride and minoxidil. These treatments can stop hair loss and regrow hair in as little as 3 to 6 months. You'll find options that work for your lifestyle, including chews, sprays, serums, and oral medication. Everything is built around your goals with no hidden fees or surprise costs. Think of HIMS as your digital front door to real health solutions that help you feel like yourself again. For simple online access to personalized and affordable care for hair loss, ED, weight loss, and more. Visit hymns.com/trigger. That's hsn.com/trigger for your free online visit. hymns.com/trigger. Individual results may vary based on studies of topical and oral minoxidil and finasteride. Featured products include compounded drug products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for full details, restrictions and important safety information.

>> But October 7th is a senerous thing. It's a one-of-a-kind thing, right? And the reason this really matters is you you know I think you paint a very important picture. I don't think enough people particularly on the pro-Israel side get the scale of the suffering in Gaza right

>> but if I were that father I would be going why are we here? How is this happened? And what I'd be saying is why did you have to go and do October 7th? Why did you make me put a a a weapon cash in my house? Why is Hamas doing this to me? We were living in relative peace. The Israelis had left. I'm not saying it was great. I'm not saying I'm not saying it was the greatest place to live in the world, right? But we were living in relative peace. The Israelis had left. I could go and work across the border. Blah blah blah blah blah. And now I've got IDF bombs on my head cuz you went and raped people.

>> Oh, well, I mean, look, I I don't disagree with that. You're saying the people of Gaza should be upset with Hamas for for October 7th? Absolutely. And in fact, there were actually protests against Hamas now, which also is a very different thing than like protesting in Israel. You know what I mean? that takes real balls to do. And so I Yeah, absolutely. But I also would probably think the same thing on the Israeli side that you after October 7th, how would you not sit there and go Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history? His whole thing was to deny the Palestinians a state by propping up Hamas so that we would never have to How would you not have that same reaction if you're an Israeli? You did this to us, BB. No, I I think a lot of Israelis do feel that way and and they should they both should every listen everyone should hate the government they live on there. That is my sense.

>> Well, we could probably agree on that and I think a lot of Israel Israelis do feel that way and I certain I'm pretty certain that when the war is is over, I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to be reelected. But the reason I bring

>> we can agree on that. Yeah. The reason I bring this up though, Dave, is and I think this is really important to for us to clarify is the scale of the suffering is something not enough people, as I say, on the pro-Israel side do give due credence to, but I also think that a lot of people who are anti-Israel, they use the scale of the suffering to confuse the issue of who bears ultimate responsibility for that suffering. And that is really the area of disagreement, right? Because we can all agree that what's h I look man, I'm a father. When I see what's happening in Gaza, it makes me sick.

>> Yeah.

>> And it should and it should make everyone sick. But the reason we disagree is that I believe the people who are responsible for that are the people who did October the 7th. And the and and I've and I'm on the record of saying this. If Hamas had attacked IDF installations, I I was totally undecided about Israel and Gaza until this war broke out. I didn't you know we had Melanie Phillips on the show in like 2019 and I was like oh Melanie you tell this great story about the creation state of Israel I think it's a little mer like

>> I was undecided right when October the 7th happened I was like the people who are responsible for what comes after this is the people who did this because any leader of any country would react in something like this way or probably worse.

>> Yeah. I mean, I I guess I just think that the same exact logic could be applied in the reverse and to say, "Listen, 60 years of brutal occupation, man. Whatever comes after this, you're responsible for that." Now, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that.

>> But that isn't true, though.

>> Well, I as true as what you said.

>> No, it's not because I'm not saying see, take another example, Russia Ukraine, right? Like, you know, I'm I have Ukrainian family. I have Russian family, too. And I It's a tragic conflict. They're engaged in a brutal war and it's a much more parity war. Therefore, it's much more brutal actually. Right. There's way more people, men on both sides being killed. If Ukrainians, who I support, went on a rampage in western parts of Russia and started raping women and taking children hostage, I would be like, there is noing way this is justified. There is no oppression, killing, but murdering in Ukraine that Russian

soldiers have done. That justifies this. This is an outrage. This is completely unacceptable. It's a different type of thing to the conflict you've been engaging in. And if you do this and the Russians then go ham, you cause this is how I'd feel about it. Right. And that's the difference.

Yeah. I guess I just don't. So certainly what I would agree with is that right, like no matter what, and I think this almost just comes down to like individualism versus collectivism, like you you don't have a right to just kill innocent people, no matter how much you've been suffering. Like it doesn't m even if the Israeli government.

What happened? Well, well, I'm saying that the say, like in the example of Hamas or in the example you just used with Ukraine. It doesn't matter, like it doesn't matter how brutal the Israeli government's been to you. You still can't just go kill teenagers at a festival. Like that's not it's not just a justified response. So I completely agree with you on that. But then also, as I said before, cutting off aid to the civilian population who's war-torn after two years.

How much aid is Russia providing to Ukraine? Right.

Hold on. Let me just finish my point here. Cutting off that aid is also not a legitimate response to like Hamas slow-rolling the the dead remains of civilians.

Okay. So.

But but is like this is what I'm saying to you. Russia is not providing any aid to you.

Yeah. But also doesn't have a blockade around uh Ukraine.

It as much as it can. It does. They deliberate.

Ukraine has been get there's been no shortage of aid that's been getting into.

Because we are trying to help. But the Russians have done everything possible to cut off rail tracks and the supplies and they're bombing logistical infrastructure in rural East. 100% think that if Russia.

Russia is not providing any aid. No one's saying, "Oh, why aren't they providing aid?" Nobody's defending what Russia's doing. Nobody here is saying, like, "Well, okay, maybe not nobody."

Have you been to Austin?

Okay. Fair enough. To Washington, D.C.? Okay. Well, look, even even that Washington, D.C. has been funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over the last year.

That's not my point. My point is no one is criticizing Russia for not providing aid to Ukraine.

No one is criticizing Russia.

I think people have uh.

They're criticizing Russia for invading. Invading, yes.

But they're not criticizing not providing aid. No one says they have a duty to feed Ukrainian civilians.

Well, it's also because the Ukrainian civilians aren't food insecure. They don't need. I mean, it's like the look, like you said, there's more parity in that conflict. It's been much more military deaths on military deaths. And so it's just not the same dynamic. But yes, look, if Russia had Ukraine under a full blockade and then they invaded Ukraine and they weren't letting food in from the international community, absolutely you would say you have an obligation to allow this aid in. Sure. Sure. And no other country would either.

Well, I don't know about that. No other country.

When the U.S. was fighting in Iraq, they cut off electricity and water to the cities that they were sieging. It's what everyone does.

Yes. To certain. Okay. But. Yeah. Yeah. But.

It's how you fight a war.

Yeah. But also, okay. You wouldn't.

That's why war is terrible.

Okay. But also, yeah. I I agree with that.

Um, but so also, you didn't have George W. Bush going to the army and calling them Amalek. You also didn't have like people in the highest levels of the U.S. government floating out plans of ethnically cleansing all of Iraq and then taking it over for ourselves. And there's just many different things in this conflict. Um, but yes, we're all in agreement that the war in Iraq was sure terrible. So that's not really.

I've been hugging the mic for like an hour. Sorry, Francis.

No, it's all good. So, um, you know, the the great thing about our conversation is I think it shows new media at its very best in that we're having a conversation. It's respectful. No one's trying to misrepresent. You know, things get a little bit passionate at times, as they would.

Just like sex. Yeah, exactly. Not the way I.

Do it, mate. But.

But all in all, I think this displays the very best in new media. People on different sides, good faith, having a disagreement, finding common ground in certain instances, disagreeing on others, but ultimately with the moment we walk away, we're going to be like, "Actually, you know what? That was brilliant. We enjoyed it." I think everybody watches or listens to it is going to have a blast. The issue comes with new media is that there is real issues or well, I have real issues and let's explore what you think in particular about this kind of this new medium where you have people interviewing certain people who have ideas that I personally think are dangerous, you know, Holocaust and whatever else. And look, you can bring whoever you want on your show. For instance, we've invited Nick Fuentes on the show. He hasn't responded. We'd love to have Nick on to have a full, robust conversation and actually challenge some of his views and some of the things he says, which I personally find despicable and highly dangerous. Where do you sit on that whole conversation and that whole debate?

Uh, well, I certainly agree with what the the first part of that, you know, and that I think there's also something where I just I just think like with the three of us, I think that's kind of just our personality anyway. It's like we're interested in these ideas. We want to talk about them. We want to debate them at some point, but I I'm just like, yeah, we go grab a beer after this and stuff. And and part of that is just, um, well, it's just kind of what else are we going to do? I mean, like what's the alternative to that? You know what I mean? Like, and and anytime you're talking about a political issue, almost anytime when you're talking about an important one, it is a matter of life and death or or close to that. I mean, you know, if you're if you're having a a conversation with Bernie Sanders about healthcare, you know, from my perspective, Bernie Sanders' healthcare proposals is going to lead to like serious suffering and deaths and all. But man, I mean, what are we going to do? Just all go to war with each other always and all hate anyone? Particular also, like I'm a Jewish guy who's very critical of Israel. So, like, you know, I got tons of family who have the exact opposite. What am I going to hate my family now? I got to hate my, you know, democratic cousin or something like that. Like, it's just it just seems crazy. And so I think like the only path forward is for us to to have these conversations. And, you know, like, so to your point of like, are there dangerous ideas? I mean, I think there's dangerous ideas all around us. And I think I think socialism is a dangerous idea. I think fascism is a dangerous idea. I think, you know, wars of choice are a dangerous idea. But right, we just got to be able to talk about these things. And I think that that's one of the best things about the new media. And with with Fuentes specifically, like in this case, and I've always been against all types of cancel culture, even when it's just like, you know, even if it even if the government wasn't involved the way they were with the big tech companies, I'd still be against big tech companies kicking people off because like that just isn't good. It's not the right path. But with Fuentes specifically in this case, I think as you guys know, part of the reason why you're saying you wanted him to come on the show, he's just gotten so huge that it's almost we're at a point where like we need to have this conversation. It makes abs absolutely no sense anymore for like, you know, hearing, um, hearing Mark Levin call to cancel Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes and kick him off social media, kick him out of these things, deplatform him. It just kind of reminds me of like a couple years ago when Brian Stelter was calling to cancel Joe Rogan and you're just like, "Who are you? Who do you think you are in the rankings of this thing?" Like, and I just I don't mean I'm not I'm not saying like popularity makes you right, but popularity does make you relevant. It does make you a relevant part of the discussion. And I think, um, I think that the best thing that could happen with with Fuentes, the the rise of Nick Fuentes, is that he does a bunch more of these shows. And I think there should there should be more debates, more conversations. And but I would also say I think with the same attitude that we have right now, we're just like, "Hey, let's talk about what we disagree with, but do it in a respect of like, let's talk about this like civilized men." Look, I'm fully in agreement with you, Dave, where cancel like cancelling people, kicking people off platforms, it doesn't work. It drives ideas underground. It's only going to go to a platform where these ideas aren't going to be challenged. It's going to give them a certain amount of, you know, dangerousness, sexiness that they simply don't deserve. My issue comes with people when they interview the Nick Fuentes of the world and they do not give an appropriate pushback on ideas. That's where I think it gets dangerous because then you just have people saying what the saying they're horrific ideas and you go, "Where's the pushback? Where's the challenge?" Because if you don't push back on people's ideas, in my opinion, you're effectively endorsing them.

Um, I don't agree with that. I just don't I don't agree that if you don't push back on someone's ideas, you're endorsing it. I I mean, I was talking about this the other day on some show. Um, but I just the example that just came to my mind was this guy, uh, Ben Burgess, who I like. He's a nice guy. Um, he's a democratic socialist and he wrote this book, uh, and I believe the title of the book was, it was called "Canceling Comedians While the World Burns," and this was back like a few years ago. And it was, uh, like, I don't know, 2018, 2019, or maybe around that time. But he was talking about how like, you know, you got all these left-wing activists and they're canceling Louis C.K. or they're going after this guy, meanwhile, we still don't have universal healthcare or universal housing or universal childcare.

I just thought that was a really interesting book and an interesting take that I kind of agreed with. And so I interviewed him. We just talked about the book and kind of talked about that. Now, I didn't I never pushed back or argued with him, but I don't think you can deduce from that that like, therefore, I'm endorsing democratic social.

Ideas are not that extreme, Dave.

Yeah. But.

If you have a Holocaust denier who says Hitler was very cool on your show and you don't push back. Has a different.

Well, so I guess I guess my point would be that I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that like being pro-socialist should be viewed as that far different from being pro-Nazi or something like that. Like these are the great evil ideologies of the 20th century and they're both responsible for a lot of horror and deaths and all of that. It's been very conventional thinking for a long time that communism is kind of misguided, but fascism is kind of evil. And I don't I don't think any of us actually agree with that. I don't need to persuade you with that, but your example isn't quite fair. For example, we had, uh, this will go out before the episode I'm about to mention, but we interviewed Hassan Peer, right?

He basically says in the episode, he doesn't say it in terms, but he's like, "I sort of say, well, people call you a communist, isn't that?" And he's like, "Yeah, I've got no problem." Like, when we interviewed him, we pushed back on stuff he said because communism is a horrific ideology. And we talked about our family's experiences and whatever. So my point is comparing him to a kind of soft socialist who says, you know, we shouldn't cancel comedians, we should focus on healthcare.

No, but he's not a soft socialist. I mean, he's a hardcore, like, he's, I mean, I would consider him a communist. He literally argues that private businesses should be abolished and that it should all be, you know, every business should be run democratically.

Does he admire Stalin? Does he said, "What we need is Stalin policies in America?" So that's the difference.

Fair enough.

You, the Trigonometry audience, understand how vital free speech is. That's why we're proud to reintroduce you to our long-standing partners, Give, Send, Go. We caught up with their founders at Jordan Peterson's Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Conference this year, and it was clear they are not just running a crowdfunding site. They're defending a principle. Take one of the most powerful examples, Daniel Penny. He stepped in during a dangerous subway incident in New York and was later charged with homicide. His Give, Send, Go campaign raised $3 million, allowing him to mount a strong legal defense as his case moves through the courts. That case made headlines, but the bigger story was this: While other platforms shut campaigns like his down, Give Go stood firm. So, if you want to support causes that matter or raise funds yourself, whether it's for free speech, helping a friend in need, or disaster relief, visit GiveSendGo.com and use the code TRIGGER for a special 2.5% processing rate. That's GiveSendGo.com, the platform that doesn't just talk about free speech, it protects it.

But I. Okay, so again, I'm not equating the things. I'm saying the logic of saying that when you don't push back, you are therefore endorsing, I think is faulty logic. So that that's.

But it depends on the extreme, is my point.

No, but I'm I'm saying that logic still remains, no matter how extreme the person is. If you if you have a conversation with somebody who has the worst views in the world and you just talked about cars and you agreed on that, it doesn't therefore logically follow that you agreed with the other stuff.

Yes. But what if you had someone on your show who says, "We should kill black people," or, you know, "Black people are genetically inferior and therefore we should structure society in such a way that, you know, they get mistreated or or whatever," or, you know, someone who who says, "You know, who encourages his followers to say, 'I will kill rap and die in my name' as Nick does."

Is this are we talking here?

Yeah. I missed I missed that one.

Oh, you didn't see that one? Um, so and then you have that person on and you don't talk about any of this, right?

Well,

That's kind of a problem, isn't it?

Well, I mean, the thing about Okay, there's a couple things here. First of all, it's it's a unique situation, like the Tucker having Nick Fuentes on. And I also had Nick on a couple weeks before. It was a big deal until Tucker had him on and now no one cares about that anymore. Tucker eclipsed me again. Um, but like, look, there's just there's there's it's a situational and there's certain dynamics that are going on here now. So, like, I I do think there's this weird, there there's to me a little bit of a disconnect between what that interview actually was and the way that a lot of people are perceiving it, where they're saying that like, okay, yes, it's true that Tucker or myself, for that matter, didn't go, "Hey, we've got you here. I think you're a terrible person and here are all the awful things that you've said and I want to fight with you for three hours about all these awful things you've said here."

But I also think that Nick Fuentes is a unique thing. You know, he came up in the dark. Like his whole brand is that he's saying the most, you know, toxic things and he's intentionally obviously. I mean, if you ever watch the kid, he's doing like a he's doing a right-wing shock jock thing. Like there's a lot of humor involved in it. There's a lot of trolling involved in it and there's a lot of kind of like getting off on "I'm saying the wildest, edgiest thing." And in that environment, no, I actually don't think it's good. Well, let me just finish this. In that environment, I don't think the right move is to like go, "I'm appalled by what you said." To me, at least, it seemed more like the right move was to go like, "All right, hey, let's talk about this." Like, "Look, do we actually believe this?" You know, and and it, what was interesting to me is when he talked to me, at least, I know he he did condemn racial hatred. He was like, "Yes, we shouldn't hate people just because of the race that they are." I I brought up the Holocaust and I was like, "You seem to be implying pretty heavily here that you don't think this happened. So, let's argue about this, 'cause I'm pretty darn sure it happened." And he really just kind of conceded. He was like, he was like, "Yeah, I think it might be exaggerated." I was like, "I don't really think it is, 'cause like, look at these numbers and look at this." He kind of conceded that. On Tucker's show, Tucker literally said to him that it is, listen, he goes, "We are Christians and it is against my religion to hate a group of people based on being in that group." And again, he did kind of seem to concede that. Now, I don't know. Does this mean that Nick is moderating his views? Does it mean that he's trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes and he still believes all of that stuff? Is he maybe a 26-year-old kid who kind of doesn't himself know whether he, you know, he made a name for himself as being the edgiest, most shocking guy. Now he's become ultra huge. Now Charlie Kirk gets murdered in front of all of us. And I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world if he was moderating his views and wanted to get a little bit better. And so while I agree with you on this, I think there should be more debates. I think Ben Shapiro should debate Nick Fuentes. Honestly, I think like there I think there should be big debates that happen. Um, but I didn't think also in the Tucker thing and with me too, in the context of it, they had been feuding. I mean, Nick had been attacking me a little while ago. And then with Tucker and him, I mean, they were like in a white-hot feud where Tucker also took a swipe at him and kind of took a swing and missed by calling him a fed without really being able to back that up or whatever, which is in this business like almost like the worst thing you could call someone. And so there, I don't know, it was like a standoff in a weird way. And I don't know, I don't I don't think that's bad. I'm still I still air on the side of.

Saying it's bad. But we're not saying it's bad to come back to. So I guess when you're saying like attacking someone and going, "I'm outraged, I'm disgusted." I agree. I think that's all performative nonsense. And we've had it, we've been accused of, you know, going soft on people and not showing appropriate levels of outrage when we interview a mainstream politician like Nigel Farage. I find it childish. I'm going to be honest with you. And performative. But what I do think it's a responsibility of anyone sitting in the chair is if this person is saying outrageous things, is for you to get to the bottom of it. Does he genuinely believe it? Is he being like a kind of comedic edge lord? Is he saying it purely in a cynical way just to get money, clicks, and attention? Is it a combination of all three? Or is he just a kid who's just somehow found himself after you know, starting off in his mom's basement to use the hack concept of, you know, the internet and all of a sudden he's got this kind of huge global audience? What is it that is that is the responsibility of the interviewer? And also as well, when Nick says the words, "Jews are not assimilable in society," and Tucker just lets that go. We've got to be honest, Dave. We really.

I love Stalin. And lets that go.

Well, he said, "We'll come back to that." Yeah. Yeah. But but also, but okay. But also like that happens sometimes, as you guys know, in interviews like you don't.

Never happened with us.

Okay, fine. But the things happen where you're like, "Oh, I wanted to get to this point. I wanted to debate this too." I guarantee in this interview right now, there's views I have that you guys both think are wrong that we don't get to on this show.

Yeah. Look, I don't agree with you that broccoli is brilliant if that's what you believe. But if you said, "I love Stalin," we might come back to it.

Fair enough. Especially if you are the voice of conservative America.

Uh, look, I.

And someone comes on your show and says they love the greatest mass murderer in the ideology of your opposition, communism, in history.

Yeah. True. M.

I'm saying people are always leaving the goat out of a conversation. It's just not it's not fair. I I I I have some dispute about, you know, how much of that was intentional and how much of that was not.

Not.

Then there's a whole other argument of does that even really matter at a certain point?

I I think I think your correction is true. The second greatest, you know, I'm I'm Russian, so I'm a bit biased to what trying to build up the numbers, right?

That those jokes could go out of context and.

That's a different category. And if someone, if I was the voice of conservative America and someone praised Hitler and then came on my show and also praised Stalin, I think I might sort of I might be like, "What?"

Sure. And isn't it reasonable to say that like, okay, I understand there's going to be people who praise Hitler and people who praise Stalin, but you can't praise both, man. Like, you got to be.

Good. You got to be good on the other one. I'm just saying if someone loves Adolf Hitler, the one thing I can count on is that they're good on hating Joseph Stalin and vice versa. So anyway, there's that.

So that gets into the question.

But but I I think like, look.

This is how I feel kind of more broadly about the thing with Nick Fuentes himself, right? And I don't know him super well, but you know, like I we hung out a little bit after we did the show. Um, and I don't look, I feel like and I think actually I think I've seen you yourself talk about this and maybe even I can't remember the exact thing you said, but you might have even said that it was the most dangerous part of wokeism on the left. And I certainly know I've been on record predicting, unless Jordan Peterson and all these people have said for so many years, like our whole thing to the woke left was, you'd go, "Now, I don't know if I would quite put it as the worst part of it," but you'd be like, "You be careful, you have no idea what you're stirring up here." And essentially now there's many things going on that's one of the dynamics, but that's a big part of it, right? So now we see that emerging. We see that reaction, um, emerging. I think.

You on white men long enough, they're going to go, "Well, okay, we're white and we're man and kids."

Yeah, that's right. And and Right. And and it's the natural response that I think young people in general would have. Um, so my thing is that there's a whole young audience of people who listen to this guy, and I don't wish to berate them with like, I want to open up the conversation and allow them to see that like there there is legitimacy to their grievances, but there is also a very dark path that they can go down with those those grievances, right? So like that's a big part of it. Um, and then the other thing is like, I I do think we kind of, you know, like I said this when I was interviewing Nick, where you know, which I I know guys our age, we've all had this thought before where we're like, "Thank God there wasn't all this stuff around when I was a kid, because my God." And I remember one of the examples that I really thought, and I'm not, I wasn't like the toughest kid, but we were like a little group of hooligans. We probably thought we were tougher than we actually were. But I remember when the, uh, you remember when, uh, uh, Salmon, Nicholas Salamon, I believe was his name, the Catholic Covington, uh, the Catholic kid.

Salmon.

Salmon. Yeah. Who was like just smiling at the Native American. And then when the full video came out, you were like, I mean, he actually could not have handled it better. You would be so proud of your kid if your kid was in that situation and handled that way. But I remember thinking like, what would me and my group of friends have said when the Black Israelites came over and they started going to these kids and they go, "You're a bunch of rapists and colonizers and you ruined this and you." I mean, me and my friends, dude, when I was 19 or whatever, we would have been like, "That's right. That's why you got raped." I mean, we would have said the most hor just because that's how we were as little kids. And so anyway, I guess my point is just now we have young people who have essentially grown up online and I don't it's like I would like there to be room for someone even who has has had the worst takes ever to like not be buried by what they said at 22. And then one quick point I'll make this real quick. I also think that like, you know, as I watched this, uh, um, this, whatever the event that all the, uh, um, Mark Levin and Lindsey Graham and all these guys, it was like the Jewish Republican, uh, thing through an event. But I listen to like Mark Levin, and it seems to me like he's doing Nick Fuentes, too. It's almost the same thing. It's like Mark Levin is like discussing ideas. He's going, "Listen, you little cockroach. You think you're going to come through me? I'll squash you like a bug, you Nazi scum." And you're like, "You're basically doing the same thing, dude. Like, you're just doing it from a different angle." All types of calls for flattening Gaza. Like, all it's like, I don't know, man. There's I don't like that stuff on any side. But it does seem to be that like.

But I think this is the point though, Dave, is I think if you had Mark Levin on your show, you'd have a very different style of conversation with him as you did with Nick.

Agreed.

Right. And this is the same thing. And by the way, I think it's very important to say we are not saying that if you have someone on your show, you've got to berate them. We haven't berated you. We haven't berated Bassam Yusef. We haven't berated Norman Finkelstein. We haven't berated, uh, we didn't berate Hassan Peer. We don't berate people with whom we disagree. But what's interesting about this, and I'm not calling for anyone to do that, and Tucker and you and anyone else can have anyone they want on their show and should, right, if they choose to. But the difference is when Tucker has Ted Cruz on, he goes hard in the paint. Ted Cruz is a state senator in this country, which is one of the reasons that you go hard at him, right? Uh, but on the other hand, this is a guy who's, you know, he's.

[clears throat]

A serious guy. On the other hand, he has Nick Fuentes on who says, "I love Stalin," and he doesn't push back on him at all.

And this is where people see the discrepancy, right?

Yeah. I just I just think this is a very weak comparison. I mean, listen, to have a sitting U.S. senator on your show who's calling for regime change, a regime change war in Iran, which is what the whole fight was over, that is just a very different thing than talking to a 26-year-old streamer. I mean, but you can't have both, Dave. You can't say he's just a 26-year-old streamer while saying he's got a massive audience.

No, no, because he is. He's both of those things. He's a he's a 26.

But you're saying it to diminish his stature in the comparison. No, I'm just describing what he is. That is different than a sitting U.S. senator calling for a regime change war.

He, like us, is someone who influences a lot of people. Sure. With that influence comes a level of scrutiny that's appropriate, right? He's not he's not someone who's inconsequential and he's someone who's saying things like, "I love Hitler. I love Stalin."

Okay. But that is different than a sitting senator who's advocating for a war. It's just different. Also, I will say, as you know, with these things, right, and like Tucker kind of said this when he was on my show, uh, recently, but like with all of these, like this conversation right now, right, where we're disagreeing about stuff, but we're doing it in a in a civil tone, but all of us have the option to shift that gear. Like I could make this a confrontational interview, or you could make this a, or you could make, like, we there's there's a dance to that. And if you actually go watch the the Ted Cruz thing, it kind of starts pretty civil. And I think Cruz was the one who kind of like escalated it to being like more confrontational, [clears throat] but Fuentes could have done done that, but he didn't, you know, and or Tucker could have done that with Nick, and he didn't. So, but again, I just think that like all these things are situationals. It's it's different. You know, obviously there is, I guess, and maybe this is part of my own bias, but yes, if you somebody say like Mark Levin, who has been, um, one of the biggest right-wing, you know, talk show hosts for my entire life. Um, probably less relevant now than then, but there was a time when he was like in the big three. It was probably like Limbaugh, Hannity, and I think he was pretty close to them. Um, who's been advocated for like several wars that have been absolutely catastrophic, who's now advocating for more. Yeah, I have a different tone with that than I do with something that I perceive to be more, um, edge lord streaming. Uh, so I, you know, I just.

So you don't think you don't think Nick likes Hitler?

Well, you don't think he likes, you know, honestly, I don't know. I just don't know.

Did you ask him?

Yeah. I, you know, I think Yeah. I mean, I I won't I'm not going to publicly say what we said privately, but like I've, you know, I'm actually not sure he likes me too much, to be honest, but, uh, but, um.

You are Jewish.

Yeah. Well.

[laughter]

I don't think that's his issue. I don't I don't I I got the impression that he was feeling the weight of the moment, that feeling the weight of the moment of of Charlie Kirk uh getting killed. And I thought his, I actually thought his stream after that, which I publicly gave him credit for.

The initial one.

The initial one after that, I was like, I I did just appreciate anyone who had that tone and particularly this guy as the biggest leader of the biggest farthest to the right, you know, constituent, like that's good to be calling for deescalation and Christianity. Like I thought that was really good. Um, I got the impression that and I don't again, I don't want to say what he views, but I got the impression that he was a person who was thinking about the weight of the moment that he was in, thinking about all of that, and also having been kind of having painted himself and been painted by others into this corner. And I kind of felt like, let's let's like leave a door open and maybe he'll move a little bit to being not as bad. That being said, I don't know that that's going to happen. You know, I I think it's quite possible that that won't be the case. But.

Do you think he's a Nazi?

I I don't know. You know, I don't know what that means exactly. Is he a Nazi? He's said favorable things about the Nazis. He seems to believe in some type of like Catholic theocracy or something like that. I don't I don't know. I don't think, um, I think that to me, it's like the Nazi thing is it's it's it's devil worshipping of today. You know what I mean? It's like that. It's the most outrageous thing that you can say. It's the biggest taboo. The And so I think there's something about like, I don't know, you know, in the same way that like when you'd see almost like a, you know, a a goth kid who's like, Dad isn't around and who hates, is he really a goth or it's like, I don't know. He's rebelling in.

That moment. Sure. Well, he's rebelling and I think I think Nick has been on record said, like, I think there's there's there's a clear decision to go, "If this is the thing that's off limits, if this is the button I'm not allowed to push, I will be pushing that as hard as I possibly can."

Why is your managed retirement account still using strategies that haven't changed in over five decades? Most IRAs, 401ks, and TSPs are still using the default 60/40 strategy because it benefits corporations, not you. If you have over $50,000 in retirement savings, get instant access to a free 2-minute report from Augusta Precious Metals that reveals how to take control of your financial future in one step. Visit triggergold.com or text TRIGGER to 35052 today.

You know, but also as well, look, I think you made a very good point about the whole redemption aspect. The fact that if you remove redemption from people, it doesn't matter who they are, they will think to themselves, either consciously or subconsciously, you know what, this, yeah.

I've there's no room root back for me, so I might as well double down. What else is there are open to me? But I think you there there comes two strategies that you have to implement for these people. Number one, you have to put in a golden bridge where like if you roll this back, you know, there is going to be hope for you on the other side because if you remove that hope, then effectively what else is left for them but doubling down and becoming even more radical. But also as well, and particularly for with young men, and somebody who's worked however long with young people when I was teaching, it's like you need to hold them accountable. If people are not held accountable for their actions or their points of view, then they're going to think this is fine or acceptable to say this, particularly if the clicks and notoriety and the money is coming through because you can say to yourself, "Hey, it's just banter. Hey, this doesn't matter. Hey, this is cool." But there are going to be people watching it who are like, "Oh, maybe the Holocaust didn't happen. Maybe, you know, Jews aren't assimilable. Maybe Jews X, maybe Jews Y." And then before you know it, you see all of these people propagating on the internet. And look, we you've got Jewish family. I've got Jewish family. Constantine's got Jewish family. We've got Jewish friends. I'm not Jewish. I was raised Catholic, but I have Jewish people and friends coming to me going, "Francis, we're really worried."

Yeah.

We were with somebody last night and I and we were having dinner and he got quite emotional and I thought, "What's going on here?" And I looked at his eyes, Dave, there was genuine fear. And he said to me, "This is the most worried I've ever been," and this is a guy who is not a young guy. And that that really strikes it worries me because that people shouldn't have to live like that. And I don't think it's an exaggeration. You know, when people go, "Racism's everywhere." I go, "Yeah, come on. Let's all calm down." But you look at this stuff and you go, "This is the most vile, toxic stuff." And that must worry you. Um, I think, yeah, I don't like, I certainly like there there's definitely been, look, there's been a huge, enormous rise in anti-Israel, uh, views and and with that, there has come a big rise in just anti-Jewish views in general. And, um, sure, I mean, there's I I know that there's a lot of fear, particularly in this city, uh, right now. There's a lot of fear, uh, amongst Jewish people. There's armed security around all types of Jewish schools and synagogues and stuff like that. And sure, I think, um, I think that's terrible. You don't want anybody to be in fear of their safety. And that being said, it's not exactly clear to me. I mean, I don't know. It's not exactly clear to me like how real that threat is. Like, if there wasn't armed security there, would people be bursting in? It's kind of hard. Look, it's hard to decipher what is the Twitter comments actually mean in real life. Like, I I don't know.

Look what happened in Washington. Look what happened in Washington.

Well, sure. Sure. But at the same time, like this is again for people who have been using the term woke, right, a lot. Like I was just saying, like you can't you can't borrow the methodology of the woke left here and say that if people feel scared or if that you can point to one example in a country of 350 million people that therefore you can deduce from that that there, you know, like this is what they used to do with hate crimes and stuff like that, like if there was one example that would prove that everybody's right and then they would also use fear, you know, in this this kind of.

That's a fair point. But let's come back to what we were talking about, the rhetoric, the things being used online. I don't think it's unreasonable for a Jewish person to see clips of Nick Fuentes where he goes, "Sit down, Jew boy," and go, "Holy, that's like something out of like Mississippi Burning. What the hell is this?"

I I'm not saying that a Jewish person shouldn't be offended by stuff that Nick said, you know. No, I agree with you.

I'm not saying it's offense. I'm not I don't really care about offense, Dave. Like offense, offense. I'm talking about like that would really worry you. If I was if I was Jewish and I had Jew kids and what I'd be like, "What is this? The start of something?" Because it sometimes feels like it. I'm going to be honest with you.

Cuz the difference is, you know, your point actually, I think is totally valid, which is like, you know, people exaggerate threats and then they go, "Oh, because of this, now this." But I I don't think during the summer of 2020 when BLM went nuts, there were people streaming on platforms saying the type of things that they're saying about. By the way, he's also saying about black people, right? Around blacks never relax is a favorite catchphrase of Nick, as far as I can tell. Right. Like that wasn't happening. People were not talking about, you know, like Nick about the black power in society and we've got to when we come to power, we're going to execute the perfidious Jews.

Well, I was that wasn't happening during the Black Lives Matter. Yeah. Like like I'm sorry, I'm just not following the type of things that Nick is saying. So, it's not quite the case that, you know, woke left, woke right, we can argue about the terminology. I don't actually give a about the term woke right. I care about the phenomenon, which I think is real, which is what we're actually talking about. Um, but so that that's kind of the point, right? We're not saying, "Oh, look, a Jewish person got offended by a tweet and now we have to restructure society." It's just like, I think what Francis is saying is there's a real threat. And you got to remember as well, we come from the UK where attacks against Jews are like happening on a daily basis now.

Are they? Yeah. I just don't know enough about the.

I mean, there was just an attack outside a synagogue, uh, in which a number of people were killed. And it's it's a regular thing now.

Yeah. I mean, look, that stuff is sure, it's definitely not good. And I think that there's, um, you know, there's there's like a like a feedback loop or a weird like symbiotic relationship between kind of like there there's like there's there's a a well-deserved paranoia that Jews have about like society turning on them. Right. And this is something like, as a Jewish person, I mean, you you really cannot overstate this. This is like a major cultural thing amongst Jews, particularly like my parents' generation. It's not quite at the same with my generation and younger people, but where they really were like raised on, in in many cases, more than the religion itself. Like the religion that they were raised on was that Europeans tried to exterminate you and they will do it again. Like this could happen at any moment. And that you have to like, you know, and and that not for the state of Israel existing, that you know, that probably would happen or something. And so, yes, when they see things like that, then it's just complete confirmation to them that of course this is all real. That's part of the reason why I think it's very unhelpful for Nick to say those things, you know, um, but I also do think that, and I guess I I I agree with your point, no, it's not exactly the same as as some of these other phenomena. I guess I would just make the point that it's like you almost want to like calm all of that down and rationally assess like, what really is the threat level to Jews, you know, in this country? Because because broadly speaking, Jews are 2% of the population in America. They are wildly successful. Like they're not exactly a victim group. Um, although historically.

You can be both. You can be economically successful and have influence, perhaps disproportionately so, as many, uh, successful minorities do. It's not just yours, right? You can also be at the same time the target of violence. And actually, often those two things go hand in hand. That's a fair point. They go hand in hand together.

Now, Amy Chu's book on that was actually really great where it's like the market dominant minorities end up has some really interesting writing about middlemen minorities.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a fair point.

Yeah. You know, I think I think this one thing I would like people to take away from this conversation, which is what we are talking about is not who should be platformed or not platformed or any of this bullit, but rather about if you're going to have people with extreme views, we feel you have a responsibility that comes with the audience that you have, I have, Francis has, Tucker has in a much bigger way, all of us to make sure that if if there are people who are coming with really abhorrent views, you can definitely and maybe should have a conversation with them in the way you said, and I don't think berating them is necessarily the answer, but you got to you can't people say this stuff like, you know, Kevin Roberts tried to pull this off and he's a very slick political operator. Does that heritage.

The heritage guy. He was like, "Look, the answer, the answer to terrible ideas is to engage with the terrible ideas." And Daniel Los goes, "So would you have him on heritage?" No, right? So.

He he can't have those both things.

He handled that in the worst possible way at every inch of it, like there, because first he came out with a real bold statement like, "I got Tucker's back and screw all you guys."

Who are trying to smear him? And then it's like, hey, once you say that, dude, then you have to lay the gauntlet down and defend that to to make that statement and then just totally back. It was just >> almost like he's a politician. [laughter] >> God, the leak, the thing that got leaked where they're all like the struggle session about all of it. Oh my god, it was horrible.

>> Heritage is a big organization and clearly a lot of people that feel differently about it within the business business within the the nonprofit or whatever it is. I don't know. I mean, in a large organization, particularly a nonprofit one where it's like the like, look, I'll be honest with you. If trigonometry staff came to me and to me and Francis and were like, "We don't like the direction of the show," I'd be like, "You can find a new job."

>> You hear that, though?

>> I mean, they're also younger and stronger than us.

>> That's true. They probably overpower. [laughter]

>> This story is just your team beats the crap that every kids can run for days.

>> And also, they're a lot better looking. So, the quality of the show, at least on the visual front, would improve.

>> Yeah. But but in a large organization that's a nonprofit with appointees, you know, if half your organization thinks you made a terrible mistake and they're going to say it at an all staff meeting, that's perfectly legitimate. They're entitled to express. It's not a struggle session. It's people saying you took our thing that we're all part of. Some of us have worked here 10 times as long as you in a direction that we hate.

>> Yeah.

>> To me, but anyway, I don't want to share on Kevin or you know, whatever. My my point is something else. Let's um let's just say one thing that's important to say which is we're not calling for anyone to be no platformed or censored or whatever or or cancelled by the way right like I I I haven't I don't follow Mark Leven's comments very closely if he's calling for people to be banned off social media I don't agree with this.

>> Yeah, he explicitly said uh cancel them deplatform.

>> By no means no one here is calling for that. I I think we even if you believe that instinctively I think we tried that and we see that it doesn't work.

>> Well, also and and I would also O say that and I think this is one of the things like that's interesting to me about the Nick Fuentes phenomenon but all of this stuff because I've really never and I've been around some pretty influential people and I have never seen anybody stretch the Overton window the way this guy has and and rise to the level of of uh prominence with views that all of us would have assumed would be like oh that's a non-starter you'll never get popular taking that opinion or whatever. Um, but one of the things that's kind of interesting is it's like from my perspective also like for Mark Leven to be calling for deplatforming of anyone. It's like as we started with like dude you you cheer led the Iraq war like who I just don't understand and this was a thing that's very interesting to me too and it was kind of a a dynamic when I debated Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's show and with Mark Levvin and all these guys. It's just the the nerve of somebody to have cheerled the war in Iraq and then turn around and say now I'm going to dictate who should be allowed to be in this conversation or who should be marginalized or who should be t like I don't know and maybe this is because I am a radical libertarian and so fundamentally even as we were talking about in Gaza I believe that state action is every bit as evil as private action if it's the same action but like you cheer led a war that got a million people killed and you were wrong about everything. Now, if you're going to argue that you still get to be a commentator, you don't have to go away forever, fine. But I really don't think you should be lecturing anyone on who else ought to be deplatformed. Um, and then in addition to just agreeing with what you said that it's also just not productive or health.

>> Yeah, I I don't think it worked. But but I was going to go to something else which is I do think um there's been also a kind of weird and I don't think accurate defense of Tucker and and and what he did and and the broader conversation which is like stop trying to cancel Tucker and mainly it's directed at people who are just saying I don't like the way he conducted that interview. Right. So, and then it comes to this thing about, oh, you know, these people are trying to split the right or or whatever, and what we need to do is just let everybody, you know, come together and hold hands and sing kumbaya. But like you're a libertarian. I imagine that if someone came to the Libertarian Party or the Libertarian movement and was like, "Hey guys, I think the best libertarianism is big government." you'd be like, "Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but not you're not in this movement here, right?"

>> Yeah. If you love socialism and gun control, you probably can't be in the libertarian movement.

>> Just like if you love Stalin and Hitler, maybe you are not part of the rightwing conservative movement. Is that is that so so when people say that's what the you don't really get to decide.

>> That's what the debate is about. right now. There are some people who say, "Well, if you try to have that debate, you're trying to cancel people and you're trying to split the movement." I I'm not on the right, nor am I, you know, in any of these conversations. But I look at it from an outside perspective and I go, isn't that a movement trying to work out whether it believes in as a libertarian movement in big government? Are these ideas that Nick is talking about, do they belong in this family of views or do they stay outside of it because they don't belong in the same way that I don't think Tucker Carlson would have Dylan Mulaney on the trans influencer and be like tell me your views about how to chop your dick off and then every conservative would be like oh yeah Tucker is entitled to have well he is entitled to have whatever you want but but that doesn't fit within the conversation of the broader political wing. of America. Is that a fair assessment?

>> Well, look, I mean, like I said before, I think like I said, I think there should be more debates and more conversations and all of this stuff. So, I I agree with you. And I also think the um you know, the the whole argument which has been made on both sides of like you're splitting the MAGA coalition. It's always >> it's like Yeah, but so are you. I mean, we're all split like Yeah, that's the whole problem with you on that like we're figuring out what we >> which ideas. Right. But what's kind of interesting, right, like about just again not to and I I think you're also right that there certainly have been people probably yourself included who have like been like, "Hey, I want to debate Nick Fentes or I think Tucker should have been, you know, more aggressive in debating him and then they go, you're engaging in cancel culture and that's silly." Um, but also at the same time, Mark Leavvin is up there. But the thing that was interesting about Mark Leven's call for cancel culture, like I was saying before, is that he's calling for Tucker, Candice, and Nick Fuentes to be cancelled, which like at this point are probably the three biggest right-wing political commentators in the country. And so, yes, it is certainly true that this this MAGA coalition is going to have to figure out ex what their identity is going to be going forward after Donald Trump. And I think that's what a lot of this fight is over right now. But I think what's like there's again like I said before there's because there's so many different aspects to this. But there's the stuff we said before about how the the left-wing racialism was always destined to trigger a reactionary racialism on the right wing. Then there's the fact that so many of these young people grew up without fathers and on drugs. And I did a whole video about, you know, I mean, it's just like like there's a lot of these factors. And then of course there's there's the factors that we all know which is like the war on terrorism and what a disaster this has been for the entire country. And of course Donald Trump even in 2016 was really a rejection of of the Bush neoonservatism. He said it right to his brother's face that your brother lied us into a war about the most aggressive thing you could say to somebody else, you know. Um, and I think what's happening right now is that there's been like the non-interventionist, the anti-war right-wing, and that that ranges from non-interventionists like myself who believe in liberty and are not identitarian all the way over to like very identitarian uh non-interventionists are getting a bigger and bigger portion of the right-wing in this country. And there's a new power imbalance here where like the a lot of the old guard neocon types Interestingly, who were the never Trumpers themselves? I think it was Desh when he was on your show was bringing that up. Uh I believe was it >> might have been more which point specifically >> was that? Well, I think what he said, you know, I watched I watched the interview with Desh on this show and then I watched the interview with him on like uh it was like the Jewish network channel and I don't I might be mixing up which happened in yours and which happened in that one, but at one point >> that's quite anti-semitic, man. >> Well, there you go. [laughter] There you go. >> I can tell you this is not the Jewish channel. >> It was all a bunch bunch of Indians talking to Jews as far as I'm concerned. [laughter] Same thing, right? Uh but um but so but he was saying at one point that he was like he was mentioning like he was like this is where the neoconservatives lost all their influence is because they jumped on the never >> in the Reagan era in conservatism there was a certain I would call it the intellectual guardians of the tribe people like William F. Buckley uh Reagan to a certain degree, but there were others Irving Crystal. And the idea here was that um if you came in with like the poison of anti-semitism, blatant racism, you know, criticism of affirmative action, yes. Um calling blacks monkeys, no. >> Um so if you did that, you were basically asked to leave the room. uh and you were abolished from the you wouldn't be invited to conservative conferences, you certainly wouldn't be a speaker. It would basically be the end of you as a public figure. >> Mhm. >> So that's gone. And it's gone. Why? Partly because we don't have a conservative intellectual class that performs that task. Um and why don't we have that? Well, partly because the mainstream of that class went never Trump. M >> and so when I look around for like if I were to make a list of let's say 30 of my colleagues from the Reagan days I would say that probably about 25 of them went anti-Trump and they went to anti-Trump in different places. John Bolton is a little different place than say Bill Crystal. Uh but nevertheless they're they're by and large excluded from MAGA. And what happened is partly as a result of a cultural shift, MAGA produces a new type of um a new type of pundant.

>> He did kind of yada yada yada over the war on terrorism as that didn't also have a huge thing to do with how they lost their influence. Like it was also the swimming pool of blood of innocent babies that you're standing in. Um but it is actually but there's something very interesting to me where and I've noticed this dynamic a lot. Right? So, this was uh Ben Shapiro like did several segments on me over the years, but he never said my name. It became kind of a running joke amongst my audience that he would bring, but it wasn't even like he'd play clips of when I was on Rogan. Like, he'd play a clip on my podcast and still go some comedian who blah blah and you're like, dude, you you clearly saw it and it's the easiest name to remember. But, so the first time he ever said my name was when I came out for against Donald Trump over the 12-day war. Uh, and I called for him to be impeached over it and all this stuff. you know, I was I was pretty dramatic about it. Um, but so then he called me out by name and then, you know, I've had, you know, Josh Hammer, this is what he tried to debate me on at that event with Charlie where it was like, look what this guy's saying about Donald Trump and uh then Steven Crowder just recently it was like, look what you said about Donald Trump and all. But it's like guys, we all remember that you were the never Trumpers. Like we all remember like the National Review piece. We all remember >> was Ben never Trump. >> Never Trumper said under no circumstances would he ever vote for Donald Trump. Same with Steven Crowder. Same with Mark Leavvin. Mark Leavin urged his whole audience to know that you will never get me to support Donald Trump. >> JD was never a Trumper. Think about that. >> No, but I'm just saying but for anyone who was a never Trumper to like start using that against you just seems like a very weird thing. But so there were the obviously there's the the Warhawks who were totally against Donald Trump. They then all became Trumpers or became Democrats. Some of them just went and built Crystal and them. Uh but and now there is just this big fight about like what's next? I think the fight is good.

>> I agree. I think we got to I think it's necessary.

>> I I just don't like this idea that if you say I think these ideas like the example I gave you of big government in a libertarian movement, these ideas should be outside of the tent. A lot of people go that's engaging in that's not cancel culture. That's people arguing about what it means to be a conservative or right-winger.

>> Sure. Sure. 100%. And and I'll say this as I've been saying pretty consistently is that I'm just listen I just oppose all of this racialism. I mean, on all sides. I mean, it's just like it's um >> again, I'm not saying like identity doesn't matter or there aren't any differences between groups. I'm not an egalitarian. I I thought Charles Murray's book was totally reasonable. Like I I'm not like you can't mention that there are differences between median IQs or something like that. Like there's there's obviously differences between racial groups and cultures and all of these things. But the only way, just like we were saying before about like the only way to go forward is for us to have a conversation and be reasonable because otherwise we just got to always fight. the only way to go forward in a multi-racial, multicultural society is to have a a strong level of individualism and not and I will say that I think you know there uh like Josh Hammer had multiple tweet he didn't say it once like multiple posts where he said that um Jew hatred is is in the DNA of Europeans >> and like I think that's also like a dumb statement all the anti-white racial Yes. So all the anti-racialism of the world that you were all against.

>> But this is something my grand I'm I'm a sort of slowly becoming Christian I think but and I was raised as a Christian but I have uh one of my grandparents my grandfather was an atheist Jew. So I maybe maybe I'm allowed to say this. Progressive Jews are the worst people in the world.

>> I mean I'd go for Peter Fo but [laughter]

>> in the political realm. Well, there's some overlap, right?

>> But and and this is kind of the problem I think for Jews in general is because Jews are disproportionately successful. You know, we can get into reasons for why that is. And I don't think, you know, I think it's anyway, let's not get into that longer conversation.

>> They are over represented in everything. And so, if you are on the far right and you want to prove that Jews are responsible for all the left-wing craziness, there they are. There's a bunch of progressive Jews who did all that got us to where we are now, right? With the woke left stuff. If you want to if you're on the left and you a leftwing anti-semite and you want to prove that Jews are the reason for ICE, you there's Steven Miller right there in the White House doing all this. And so,

>> no, the war on terrorism, communism. I mean, yeah, there's a whole bunch of things you could look >> at because Jews are over represented and particularly in intellectual endeavors. Well, in my my field of uh my view of libertarianism, I mean, it's totally like Murray Rothbart and Lwick van Mises and to just Jews all around.

>> So, and and the same with other groups is is if you really racialize a nation and you get everyone to think about their identity, I just don't think that ends well for anybody.

>> Well, it also, you know, I agree with you. It doesn't end well for anybody. It's also it um it's corrosive to your own soul and your own mind. Like I've just seen it in people. I've seen people who get like and and both like on like all different types of racialism. Like I've seen it during on woke leftists where like they just got and somehow racialism it's like catnip for the plebs. People love it. They get so into it. So yeah, it like really does play on that tribal thing and it leads to sloppy thinking. Like I've just seen this all over the place where you're like, "No, dude." Like, you're you're starting with your conclusion here and not thinking clearly and this is one of the problems of collectivism in general is that like, it's not actually accurate because we're we're individuals.

>> This is not a gotcha in any way. I'm just curious because I didn't watch all your interview with Nick. Did you have this debate with him about identitarianism?

>> Yeah, we got into um yeah, I mean we got into just like the idea of collectivism versus individualism and the idea of like you know like harboring resentment toward anybody because of their race. And then I I mean I we kind of had the argument of like is your is your beef with the Israel lobby and the government of Israel or is your beef with the Jews? And I made the point to him that um which I think is a really sound point is that like there's really no question that like the Israel lobby was pushing for the war in Iraq. Whether it's the neoconservatives, Apac, the UAE, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, like all these groups were openly for the war in Iraq, but American Jews were the strongest in opposition to the war in Iraq. Now, part of that is because they're liberal, but whatever. still on that issue, they were good on that issue. And so I was just making the argument that like, well, no, actually I'm much more accurate when I'm saying the Israel lobby rather than saying the Jews. And then I I think at one point I was like like Barry the dentist down the street has nothing to do with what's happening in Gaza. And he seemed to kind of agree with that. But you know, the thing is, I thought we might argue a little bit more on the show, but every time I kind of brought up a topic that was like the thing I thought we were going to argue about, he didn't really disagree with what I was saying. And maybe I should have d maybe I should have been tougher. But again, also it's like, you know, none of these things are ever a perfect interview. And I wouldn't I wouldn't be opposed I said this on a show the other day, but I wouldn't be opposed to doing like a more like like structured debate with Nick Fuentes about these issues. I did a debate with them once a few years ago. Um, but yeah, but look, I mean, I just think that there there's going to have to be a I also think part of this, which is like a kind of a broader question, is like, so I was born in 1983, right? The Civil Rights Act in in the United States was in 1964. Now, as a kid, you feel like that's ancient history, you know, but like as you get older, you're like, "Oh, I was born 19 years after the Civil Rights Act." And now we are 60 plus years after the Civil Rights Act. And I think perhaps that it's kind of appropriate, and I'm not even talking about law. I'm just talking about like culture, but I think it's kind of appropriate to have a different dynamic 60 years after something verse 19 years after something. And I think that the um the the fact that essentially the rules of polite society have been for quite a while that everyone's allowed to be collectivists. Everyone's allowed to have their own racial identity except for straight white men. And that is just we we've got to find a way to go like no it just it can't be. It's not going to work going for

>> But that's why we've been against time. Well, look, the first thing I ever saw you on, as I'm sure most people uh or not most people, but a lot of people found you on that Oxford speech that went super viral, and I thought that was I thought it was brilliant, man. Like, you were totally breaking it down. This is not this, first of all, we're so many years removed from this that it's just unreasonable to say that like these people are the victimized class. Also, with a mass immigration, like half the people who are on the lower rungs of society weren't here to be oppressed by any of this stuff. They just got welcomed into a very nice society that's been built for. So they really don't have like a a grievance with the or they might think they do but they don't. Um and so I do think there's something there there's a there's a signal of Nick Fentes being so big that all of us should really think about you know like really grapple with this. It's like there are young straight white men and that's not exclusively his audience but I think it is majority who are not playing this game anymore. And I understand it. You know, I understand I saw one clip again the other day. It was someone I think it was someone at the Mam Donnie victory party. I don't know if you saw this, but at his victory where they were like there white people don't have culture. You know that whole woke thing that they go off

>> In those circles everybody needs some spice of color in their lives. Life's a lot better. And that's the coolest thing about America. Americans have culture except for multicultural.

>> Well said.

>> And we need to teach people how to embrace that. these prestige white people need to embrace it because they do when they pick their entertainment.

>> Yes.

>> And they need you when they start making representative.

>> It's funny you said >> there's like a certain point where you just hear that and you're like we don't like white people don't have culture. Are you out of your mind? Like what and and we've just got to find a way to like move forward where it's like we're not doing that anymore on all sides.

>> Right. Yeah. And that is a perfect place to end the interview. Dave, look, one of the things I love about America is that people are so much more willing to come on this show, to come on shows where people disagree and have good faith discussions, disagreements, debate. So really, thank you so much for coming on. It's been a pleasure. The say the final question is always the same. What's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that we really should be?

>> Well, oh man, there's a few God, there's >> Do you mind if we don't wrap up just yet? cuz we got a bit of time and there's one or two other things I wanted to ask.

>> Okay. Yeah. Cool. Cool. Cool. Cool.

>> Uh but I have forgotten what I wanted to ask. [laughter]

>> That's unfortunate time.

>> Before you leave.

>> Before you leave, I've got all these questions that I >> You guys You guys are too young, but you haven't.

>> Can we get some more water and I'll remember it.

>> When I when when we were kids, there used to be like cop shows that were real big and there used there was a big one in America called Columbbo. And it would always go it would always be the same thing like it would be like he's he's asking the guy things and then the guy's like no I was here I was here at this time and then he go okay we have no further questions and then he'd walk and he'd go there is just [laughter]

>> and that would always be the moment where they're like thank god he'd be like I wasn't there on Tuesday and like no one said Tuesday >> so I thought constant was about to do that today that's what's going to happen >> I was like all right I survived this we got through it and then constant there is just one more thing I have a screenshot here >> there Just one more thing and it's not a screenshot but it is actually a question and I don't mean this in a disparaging way

>> but here's something I think about a lot right we're all creatures of the internet >> you are we are everybody in our game is on the internet and there's a hell of a lot of the country that's not on the internet like we on the mainstream media with very good justification >> but if you look at the numbers TV in aggregate is way bigger than us, right? They they might be going this way and we're going that way, but there are way way way more people in this country who are not engaging in debates about Israel on Twitter.

>> Sure. Sure.

>> than there are who are right.

>> And so I thought that obviously you just had the midterm, not the midterms, but you had the elections here in the US, >> the Democrats crushed. >> Very good night for the Democrats. >> Very good night for the Democrats. And you know, there's some reasons for that which we can get into. But I I I did see a tweet from you that made me kind of go, is Dave a little bit too online here? Cuz you said, you know, this is all about Israel is sort of how I read. Maybe unfair.

>> No, no, no. That that probably, you know, I did a a whole podcast on that and that was like the tweet I put out that day, but I probably could have worded that better or at least been a little clearer on what I was saying, which I think I was clear on the podcast, but I did say at one point in the tweet like, "It's all about Israel." And I didn't my point is not exactly that and in fact I don't think that's even what >> cuz it's about economics much more so yeah but but the thing is this right it's like so first of all let me just say first it really cuz I've seen some like Republicans here trying to downplay it like whatever these were these were Democrat strongholds anyway but like that is just not right and this should be a huge wakeup call for the Republican party because you after the absolute destruction of the party the collapse of Biden and Camala Harris and this party being and the I mean like we've in my lifetime there's never been a party that was more damaged than where the Democrats were coming in with a 24% approval rating that even when Trump's approval rating dipped didn't bump up at all like they they just they were and the fact that okay in uh in take New York City out of it because Trump endorsed Cuomo so the Republican getting 7% even though it's pretty pathetic is a little bit of an asterisk but in Jersey it was a much closer race for governor, the gubernatorial race last time than this time. And Virginia should be competitive after 2024. That's so the fact that they got blown out by 20 points and then blown out in New Jersey worse than they did two years ago. Uh that's a really bad sign. And when I say that it's all I mean, look, Camala Harris didn't lose solely because of of Israel, but it definitely like totally divided her base. And they, you know, the the left-wing activists were calling the president genocide Joe for a full year, like leading up to the election. And those left-wing activists were the people they needed to be out there as their attack dogs against Donald Trump. And they weren't doing it. They weren't protesting him. They were protesting the genocide as they see it that was the current administration was conducting. And now likewise with Donald Trump, you know, you you have this dynamic where he can he can say, "I gave Israel every weapon they needed so that they could destroy all of Gaza, and then we're going to spend money to rebuild it and do all this, and I bombed the Houthies, and I bombed the nuclear sites in Iran and all this." But that's actually not what's winning any of the votes. What people care about, and what all three of these Democrats ran on, is the unaffordability crisis, right? In other words, inflation. In other words, the debasement of the currency. And so my broader point is like what we started with to begin with that it's like if you want to do what Donald Trump's doing, which is essentially saying, I want an even bigger defense budget. I want to have the first trillion dollar defense budget and I won't touch entitlement programs and all of this. Well, then the only way to maintain that is to continue debasing the currency. But the problem here is that what they they go, look, inflation's not as bad as under Joe Biden. It was only 3 and a half% year to date. But that just means for everybody else it's worse than it was under Joe Biden.

>> Well, but this is why I'm asking you because with all respect, it we disagree about Israel, but that's not why I'm saying it. I just think like for example, when wokeness was at its peak, I would say that was my lens to see pretty much everything. And so I would probably overindex the impact of wokeness on things. It just when I saw that tweet from you, I just thought like you've massively overindexed this one issue.

>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I might I might have been a little bit guilty of that and I probably could have worded that that tweet better, but I do also think that we shouldn't. I mean, look, this huge divide on the right wing right now is all about this. I mean, it's all about foreign policy and Israel at least. But no, to your point, that's in the commentator class. Whereas I do agree with you that for broadly speaking for the rest of the country things like look I mean through all of 2024 every single poll that was I mean maybe there's one I missed but every single poll that was done on it it's like the two issues were the economy and immigration that's what people care about but of course of course that makes sense but I also think that like the economy and immigration are also you know >> they're they're related to all of these policies. I mean immigration not as much for us I think much more so in Europe that immigration is not unrelated to the fact that we fought wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen like all the Is that a big factor? No, you don't think toppling of Gaddafi was a big factor in the migrant crisis?

>> I I I think the fact that people wanted to leave was partly caused by the conflicts. Of course,

>> whether we had to let them in.

>> No. Oh, I agree with I certainly agree with that. You still don't have to let them in. But if you're so if you're going to have a lax Yes. It is the worst of both worlds to have a lax immigration policy and then start funding civil wars in all of the southern

>> what I'm getting at though and forgive me for for honing in on this and and you've already said you know I should have been I I just wonder whether there is when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back into you and I just wonder because your focus has been on the things that you believe Israel has done wrong whether that's kind of so overindexed now that you Like when something happens, you just go, "Well, this is about Israel." And by the way, you challenge people as well on this to be fair to you, right? Like when someone said Israel killed Charlie Kirk, you were like, "What's the evidence for this?"

>> Yeah.

>> Right.

>> But I also just wonder whether, you know, you're overindexing it.

>> Yeah. Look, I mean, I'm sure we're all guilty of that at times. Um and perhaps although I don't I do think that like no there's a major I mean this is this is like a big thing that's happening in the country and the relationship between the US and Israel is I think viewed in a drastically different way that would have been like unthinkable a generation ago and I think that particularly with young people um and that's going to be you know that's going to have a big impact going forward. Um, no. I mean, I think that there's um, you know, it's like people could say like Twitter's not real life and it's like it is and it becomes eventually.

>> It is and it isn't. You know what I mean? Like it kind of is and it kind of isn't. Um,

>> but you can't you can't blame the election results on it is what I'm saying. I think that uh I I think that the fact that Donald Trump is um uh pursuing the foreign policy that he's pursued uh I think is also related to why he buried the Epstein thing which really got a lot of his base uh got a lot of the enthusiasm like calmed down. I think it really damaged him and I think we'll see that in the future like looking back at it that that really did damage him. Um but I do agree with you that I think I think the um I think COVID and immigration and the money the inflation is the thing that most people are really feeling. I mean that and and that just most people what they really care about is like the kind of basic things that people care about is like being able to afford a decent home, being able to send their kids to a decent school, having decent health coverage, you know, things like that. So I do agree with you, but I also think that like essentially like the foreign policy and the entitlement programs are very related to those phenomenons.

>> Dave, what a pleasure. Final question is always the same. What's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be?

>> Before Dave answers the final question at the end of the interview, go to triggerpod.co.uk where we ask him your questions.

>> What would you say are the key differences between the IDF and Hamas?

>> So, do I think that Hamas will relinquish power? Yes.

>> Um I mean

>> and if they don't, what would be the appropriate response from Israel?

>> Oh man, you guys are making me steal man Douglas Murray. This isn't fair.

>> Well, I mean, you know, at the the risk of sounding boring. Um it really is the debt. I mean, like there's, you know, there's just so many conversations in in politics and, you know, you have these moments like we had the the Tea Party uh here in America where, hey, we were really talking about the debt and deficit and that's what all the Republicans are going to run on is we're going to be deficit hawks.

>> None of that materialized into anything. It it materialized into Donald Trump uh at well, I mean, I guess this is before Donald Trump was president, but Barack Obama just kept raising spending every year. uh Trump came in, raised the spending from the the levels that Obama had in. Then uh you know during 2020, his last year, breaks all the records with the highest spending year ever. Joe Biden comes in and increases the spending from Donald Trump. Donald Trump comes in again, increases the SP. We can't even go back to precoid levels. And what and then of course there was this big thing about uh Doge was going to find $2 trillion in the budget and cut that. And we had these super tech geniuses who were going to do it and they were going to figure it all out. Complete failure led to no cuts whatsoever. And we're at a point now where the interest on the debt is over a trillion dollars a year. I think it's going to be 1.3 or 1.4 trillion this year and going up. It's now becoming the number. Let's just think about this. If we were to balance the budget, we which is impossible to even imagine under current situations, we still run trillion dollar deficits every single year. This is like a cataclysmic shift that is coming. Um, and it threatens the the dollar is the as the world reserve currency. It threatens, you know, the the whole standing of America in the global order. And yet there's just no political will, as we were talking about before, to deal with any of the things that we can afford.

>> But this is why people don't talk about it, man. Because in the paradigm that we exist in, there's nothing you can do. And that's why I think what Trump is trying to do is trying to grow fast enough that you outrun that problem. And maybe if AI doesn't kill us all, that's the way that robotics and AI maybe creates enough wealth creation over a rapid period of time that we can sort that.

>> Even with drastic spending cuts though, you would need rapid growth just to to overcome this. So the idea that you can do it without drastic spending cuts is really a problem. But then I would also point out that this is the thing I guess that's frustrating and I so I agree with you but then I think the whole role is to break that paradigm just like you know we'll just intellectually like talking about these things but the the point is that >> look the whole lesson of the 20th the 20th century about economic systems is so obvious like central planning fails and lazy fair free markets produces prosperity like to unbelievable I mean look think about the experiments run in north and south Korea or east and west Germany where you have the same race, the same culture, the same like everything. Just one is an economic, you know, socialist and one is reasonably free market. And so you're like, oh, what's the problem that we have to shrink the size of government and make that much smaller? It's like, yeah, that's what leads to prosperity. We could have a ton of it, but we would have to really get serious about that.

>> But think about this though, man. I mean, we just talked about the election results, which are all about all about affordability. to cut entitlements and spending, you're gonna have to hurt a lot of people.

>> Yeah. No, there's like everything is trade-offs.

>> And those people don't. That's right. They are not going to vote for somebody who does that.

>> Look, this is the truth. It's it's a flaw in democracy, right? And I'm not saying that that's an argument for anything other than democracy, but it certainly is a flaw in democracy. And there's there's flaws in monarchy. There's flaws in, you know, all types of different uh systems. But the one of the major flaws in democracy is just like like with anything else the you know if if we're in a car and the car breaks down and there happens to be a mechanic who's in the car with us. We don't vote over what we think the solution should be. We go well you know this so you tell us what it should be. And now I'm not saying you want a dictator or something like that. But when you have democracy, when everyone gets an equal vote, whether they're a net taxpayer or a net tax recipient, whether they're 18, whether they're 60, whe any of these things, it just always makes sense to number one, play to the low information voters. There's always a lot more of them than there are high information voters. And then number two, to promise free stuff to people. It's always more, listen, I'm going to cut your taxes and give you free stuff is always a better sell than we're going to cut your program or we're going to, you know, and but the shortterm pain that would be felt by cutting a lot of these programs is >> is far preferable to the long-term pain of a real debt crisis, which we're facing. and and the possibility of of like real hyperinflation, which seems to be long-term the most reasonable answer to all of this is that eventually you just what do they call monetize the debt, right? You just eventually you got to say, "Okay, well, the only way we can actually pay this money back is if we pay it in dollars that really aren't worth that much."

>> Dave, thank you so much for coming on the show. Follow us over on Substack where we continue the conversation. [music] There's a genocide happening in Sudan right now. Under your non-interventionist foreign policy, we do nothing and let it happen. [music] How many people would have to die before non-interventionism becomes immoral and complicity? [music]